Comm2A has filed an amicus in a stun gun possession criminal case at the SJC

[Friday]

Another thought- based on the opinions written, it would seem all of this BS about semi-auto bans, such as what's going on in Lex, would be moot? It seems this would take the wind out of most attempts to ban specific types of arms. The threat of litigation against such measures would certainly have teeth now, and may dissuade the moonbats from their crusade, at least until they can find another way to describe, "guns are icky".

 

[Friday]

I dunno Rob, "Only the paranoid survive" is a mantra I use quite often. I think, in this case, the SJC's logic was so flawed that SCOTUS had little choice but to address it, more so as the SJC was perverting SCOTUS's own opinions.

I think SCOTUS is extending a courtesy to MA, giving them a chance to swing in line. Next step will be a true bitch-slapping into order, if they fail to comply.

Whether it's guns or trade policies, once you trip that wire, the court is going to get nasty if you reject their orders.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Thank You for all you do COMM2A.

Thanks, but just to be clear, Comm2A's role in this case was limited to amicus. We did not originate this case, fund it, or participate in it's planning or execution. While I'd like to think that our amicus work in the SJC and at SCOTUS helped the justices to arrive at their decision, the real credit here goes to Ms. Caetano and her public defender. This was a somewhat expense out-of-pocket expense, but worth every single penny.

This is the kind of case where 99.99% of the time the courts, prosecutors and defense attorneys conspire to clear cases rather than dispensing justice. Ms. Caetano's conviction was placed 'on file' - over her objection - essentially relieving her of any adverse consequence from her conviction. This was also a fact that the Commonwealth used to assert that she had no right to an appeal. It was only because Ms. Caetano and her public defender where determined to right a serious injustice that we were able to get this far. The real hero here is Ms. Caetano's public defender. For me he is the model of what every legal advocate should be. His petition to the US Supreme Court and especially his reply to the Commonwealth's opposition were just outstanding. I really encourage everyone to these filings because they are brilliant.

One of the best aspects of this case is that neither Ms. Caetano nor her attorney are particularity strong 2A torch bearers as far as I know. This case is about fundamental justice and the rule of law and that's what we see prevailing today. By the way, did I mention this was an under-paid public defender who could have easily told his client to just be happy with this quasi, no consequences conviction?

Ironically, perhaps the party we should thank here is the SJC itself. Without their utter contempt for the Second Amendment and their willingness to thumb their nose at established law we would not have gotten here. They could have easily disposed of this case without giving the Supreme Court the opportunity drag them over the coals. In this sense, they've done everyone a favor by finally getting SCOTUS to do something more with the Second Amendment.

Today is one of the most gratifying I've had since we started Comm2A. While I'm delighted with the 2A implications of the ruling, I'm particularly happy that in some small way we're contributing to undoing a particularly stark and unfair injustice.

 

[Rockrivr1]

Unless I'm reading it wrong this almost seems like a judicial slap-down to the MA Supreme Court by their big brothers and sisters. On the other hand I'm sure the MA SC can putter around this forever and not really do anything.

 

[92G]

Cannot say how proud I am of Ms. Caetano, her legal team and Comm2A.
A thank-you-donation has been made. I am grateful have such bright folks on this side of fence.

As LenS has pointed out, I'm very interested to hear whether this will have any impact on the AWB of MA.

 

[doctorbossman]

Then 'bravo' to: Comm2A, Ms Ceatano and her public defender.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

this is what I like to see

fundamental justice and the rule of law and that's what we see prevailing

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Right now it means the SJC gets another chance to BS their way to an explanation of how 131J is constitutional. If they actually do the right thing and rule 131J unconstitutional and overturn Caetano's conviction, then stun guns would become legal in MA. The legislature could always pass another law, and I could definitely see them passing a law limiting stun guns to LTC holders or some such thing.

The SJC could very well uphold here conviction and 131J and try to side step the issue. This would be pretty hard given that the Caetano's appeal was a straight-on "does the 2A project stun guns?" kind of question. The Commonwealth also argued that the Second Amendment was limited to a 'venn diagram' intersection between handguns and the home. That reasoning is clearly not going to apply.

If the SJC does rule that some or all of 131J is unconstitutional, you can expect the legislature to quickly pass legislation regulating their possession and use. What that will look like is anyone's guess.

Unless I'm reading it wrong this almost seems like a judicial slap-down to the MA Supreme Court by their big brothers and sisters. On the other hand I'm sure the MA SC can putter around this forever and not really do anything.

That is exactly what it is.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Thanks, but just to be clear, Comm2A's role in this case was limited to amicus. We did not originate this case, fund it, or participate in it's planning or execution. While I'd like to think that our amicus work in the SJC and at SCOTUS helped the justices to arrive at their decision, the real credit here goes to Ms. Caetano and her public defender. This was a somewhat expense out-of-pocket expense, but worth every single penny.

This is the kind of case where 99.99% of the time the courts, prosecutors and defense attorneys conspire to clear cases rather than dispensing justice. Ms. Caetano's conviction was placed 'on file' - over her objection - essentially relieving her of any adverse consequence from her conviction. This was also a fact that the Commonwealth used to assert that she had no right to an appeal. It was only because Ms. Caetano and her public defender where determined to right a serious injustice that we were able to get this far. The real hero here is Ms. Caetano's public defender. For me he is the model of what every legal advocate should be. His petition to the US Supreme Court and especially his reply to the Commonwealth's opposition were just outstanding. I really encourage everyone to these filings because they are brilliant.

One of the best aspects of this case is that neither Ms. Caetano nor her attorney are particularity strong 2A torch bearers as far as I know. This case is about fundamental justice and the rule of law and that's what we see prevailing today. By the way, did I mention this was an under-paid public defender who could have easily told his client to just be happy with this quasi, no consequences conviction?

Ironically, perhaps the party we should thank here is the SJC itself. Without their utter contempt for the Second Amendment and their willingness to thumb their nose at established law we would not have gotten here. They could have easily disposed of this case without giving the Supreme Court the opportunity drag them over the coals. In this sense, they've done everyone a favor by finally getting SCOTUS to do something more with the Second Amendment.

Today is one of the most gratifying I've had since we started Comm2A. While I'm delighted with the 2A implications of the ruling, I'm particularly happy that in some small way we're contributing to undoing a particularly stark and unfair injustice.

Thank you to the defense attorney and Mrs Caetano. COMMA2A still got involved. Thanks for doing so.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Let me ask another dumb question. Is it possible for the MA supremes to simply say she was not guilty, but at the same time, not overthrow the stun gun law? It sounds counter-intuitive because it would mean that a person cannot be convicted for possession of a stun gun, without actually saying the stun gun law is unconstitutional itself? Basically meaning, a person can own a stun gun illegally but cannot be convicted for possession? Or would they overthrow the law saying it's unconstitutional? Or could they say she wasn't guilty of this crime, but the stun gun law still stands because they are dangerous and there is a public safety interest? Even that I think would be tough to consider because although the NFA firearms act was designed to protect against once upon a time 'dangerous weapons' no such precedent exists at the federal level.

 

[Garys]

The order list is usually pretty boring reading, this is a very nice exception.

Consequently, the petition for a writ of
certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is
remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with
this opinion.
It is so ordered.

Am I wrong in my understanding that SCOTUS granted cert and is giving the SJC a chance to correct it's errors and if that doesn't happen then SCOTUS will hear the case?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032116zor_h3ci.pdf

Start at page 15. GVR with a per curium decision ripping apart the SJC's reasoning in the case. Alito and Thomas issue a concurring opion just to remove all doubt.

This is huge, it's really huge.

 

[Friday]

or MA may simply make defendants go through the same process, repeatedly, like they do in overturning ancient marijuana conviction cases to restore their 2A rights, despite the fact that a ruling was made.

 

[teaser452]

Is there a name behind this public defender? Where can I find his or her name?

I'm for outing him or her. They deserve it!

Gotta protect the good ones! And gutsy ones!

 

[Salyeica]

So, among other things the MA court just got bitch slapped! is that correct assessment of this?

Pretty much. I'd even go so far as to say they got tea bagged. What a satisfying lunch read that was! Hopefully this ruling opens the door for more Pro-2A judgements, but I should keep breathing, just in case. That said, this is a nice one to savor!

 

[jar]

The order list is usually pretty boring reading, this is a very nice exception.



Am I wrong in my understanding that SCOTUS granted cert and is giving the SJC a chance to correct it's errors and if that doesn't happen then SCOTUS will hear the case?

They granted cert and ruled in the case all at once. In this case the ruling was what's called a GVR. Grant cert, Vacate the lower court decision, and Remand for further proceedings. GVRs usually happen when there was a relevant supreme court opinion published in another case while the instant case was ongoing. Those are often one sentence, like "the petition for certiorari has been granted, the decision below is vacated, and remanded for reconsideration in light of U.S. v Sumdood." In this case, they wrote a little more since the SJC completely mangled the interpretation of Heller.

If, on remand, the SJC continues to thumb their nose at Heller, I think Caetano has to petition for cert again. I'm sure SCOTUS would be more forceful in slapping them down if that's the case. However, if they come up with some novel way of upholding Caetano's conviction, who knows what would happen.

 

[terraformer]

Thanks, but just to be clear, Comm2A's role in this case was limited to amicus. We did not originate this case, fund it, or participate in it's planning or execution. While I'd like to think that our amicus work in the SJC and at SCOTUS helped the justices to arrive at their decision, the real credit here goes to Ms. Caetano and her public defender. This was a somewhat expense out-of-pocket expense, but worth every single penny.

This is the kind of case where 99.99% of the time the courts, prosecutors and defense attorneys conspire to clear cases rather than dispensing justice. Ms. Caetano's conviction was placed 'on file' - over her objection - essentially relieving her of any adverse consequence from her conviction. This was also a fact that the Commonwealth used to assert that she had no right to an appeal. It was only because Ms. Caetano and her public defender where determined to right a serious injustice that we were able to get this far. The real hero here is Ms. Caetano's public defender. For me he is the model of what every legal advocate should be. His petition to the US Supreme Court and especially his reply to the Commonwealth's opposition were just outstanding. I really encourage everyone to these filings because they are brilliant.

One of the best aspects of this case is that neither Ms. Caetano nor her attorney are particularity strong 2A torch bearers as far as I know. This case is about fundamental justice and the rule of law and that's what we see prevailing today. By the way, did I mention this was an under-paid public defender who could have easily told his client to just be happy with this quasi, no consequences conviction?

Ironically, perhaps the party we should thank here is the SJC itself. Without their utter contempt for the Second Amendment and their willingness to thumb their nose at established law we would not have gotten here. They could have easily disposed of this case without giving the Supreme Court the opportunity drag them over the coals. In this sense, they've done everyone a favor by finally getting SCOTUS to do something more with the Second Amendment.

Today is one of the most gratifying I've had since we started Comm2A. While I'm delighted with the 2A implications of the ruling, I'm particularly happy that in some small way we're contributing to undoing a particularly stark and unfair injustice.

But don't forget, we were working with CIR (center for individual rights) to field a case on this topic. There is evidence of that in some posts by either me and/or comm2a's main account looking for plaintiffs. That got put on hold once it was clear Caetano's case was going to the SJC.

 

[soam]

Is there a name behind this public defender? Where can I find his or her name?

I'm for outing him or her. They deserve it!

Gotta protect the good ones! And gutsy ones!

Benjamin H. Keehn, according to the filings.

 

[mbullism]

I caught myself several times reading that with my mouth wide open... I gotta believe in the circles of written judicial opinion that surpasses "bitch slap"...

 

[Garys]

Thank you. That explains it nicely.

They granted cert and ruled in the case all at once. In this case the ruling was what's called a GVR. Grant cert, Vacate the lower court decision, and Remand for further proceedings. GVRs usually happen when there was a relevant supreme court opinion published in another case while the instant case was ongoing. Those are often one sentence, like "the petition for certiorari has been granted, the decision below is vacated, and remanded for reconsideration in light of U.S. v Sumdood." In this case, they wrote a little more since the SJC completely mangled the interpretation of Heller.

If, on remand, the SJC continues to thumb their nose at Heller, I think Caetano has to petition for cert again. I'm sure SCOTUS would be more forceful in slapping them down if that's the case. However, if they come up with some novel way of upholding Caetano's conviction, who knows what would happen.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Is there a name behind this public defender? Where can I find his or her name?

I'm for outing him or her. They deserve it!

Gotta protect the good ones! And gutsy ones!

Benjamin H. Keehn, according to the filings.

Fine, but I don't know that Mr. Keehn is especially interested in public accolades. I also suspect he's not looking to be thought of as a champion of the Second Amendment. What he is, is a good attorney who is committed to doing everything in his power to help his clients seek justice. It would be wrong to try and read anything more into it than that.

On another note:

Adam Winkler has been tweeting about this decision and made a really good point. We have a unanimous Supreme Court voting to uphold Heller. At this point it would be nearly impossible for them to change direction and reverse themselves in any meaningful way. We may not get the kinds of clarifications we're looking for in many areas, but they've basically taken reversing Heller off the table.

 

[earthshine402]

Adam Winkler has been tweeting about this decision and made a really good point. We have a unanimous Supreme Court voting to uphold Heller. At this point it would be nearly impossible for them to change direction and reverse themselves in any meaningful way. We may not get the kinds of clarifications we're looking for in many areas, but they've basically taken reversing Heller off the table.

Is it possible that sometime in the future, the classifying of certain weapons as "dangerous and unusual" may change? or is that outright against Heller all together?

 

[MachineHead]

Is it possible that sometime in the future, the classifying of certain weapons as "dangerous and unusual" may change? or is that outright against Heller all together?

Dying to get ahold of that zoobow, eh?

 

[SpaceCritter]

Dying to get ahold of that zoobow, eh?

http://www.amazon.com/Zoobow-Multi-colour-Rechargeable-Nightlight-Newborn/dp/B006MUW36Q

 

[Rob Boudrie]

or MA may simply make defendants go through the same process, repeatedly, like they do in overturning ancient marijuana conviction cases to restore their 2A rights, despite the fact that a ruling was made.

True, but thanks to Comm2A, defendants not interested in copping a plea or taking a CWOF are likely to be able to get competent legal representation. This is particularly important for defendants who are not rich enough to consider legal fees part of the cost of doing the business of life, but not poor enough to get a public defender ... or who are living in their parents basement past age of majority which the MA SJC has held disqualifies them from a public defender as their parents agreed to pay all legal fees when giving them housing.

 

[rep308]

The MA State Supreme Court actions lead to the upholding of Heller, Pure Gold

Originally Posted by Knuckle Dragger View Post
Adam Winkler has been tweeting about this decision and made a really good point. We have a unanimous Supreme Court voting to uphold Heller. At this point it would be nearly impossible for them to change direction and reverse themselves in any meaningful way. We may not get the kinds of clarifications we're looking for in many areas, but they've basically taken reversing Heller off the table.


Another $50 headed your way:

Secure Payment Processing
Thank you for your purchase. Your transaction has been processed with the following authorization:

APPROVED XXXX

A summary of this transaction has been sent to the email address provided.

To return to Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc., please select the following link:

http://www.comm2a.org/index.php/53-miscellaneous/98-thank-you
Copyright © 2016
eProcessingNetwork, LLC.
All Rights Reserved

 

[Garden12]

From the globe:

Keith G. Langer, attorney for the non-profit Commonwealth Second Amendment group, which has supported the challenges to the ban, said the US Supreme Court has sent a clear signal to the SJC and the Massachusetts Legislature that the law banning ownership of stun guns must be overhauled.

Langer, who applauded the federal judges, stressed that until those changes actually take place, it is still a crime to carry a stun gun in Massachusetts.

“Unless and until [rewriting of the law] happens, I would not advise anybody to be carrying a stun gun in Massachusetts,’’ he said. “The SJC hasn’t acted and the Legislature hasn’t acted yet. They would still be illegal.’’

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...-gun-ruling/RtA9pHtavuYhzXw9KPotCM/story.html

 

[AHM]

... This is crazy. Only the moonbats at the SJC could get Ginsberg and Sotomayor to agree with Alito and Thomas on a GUN case!

 

[FrugalFannie]

So a little off topic... whats with the 6 attorneys who were suspended in the link that Knuckle Dragger posted of the decision? Was that related to this case?

 

[MachineHead]

But the SJC was ordered to start over and reconsider their legal conclusions using the guidance provided by Alito and Thomas,who wrote that the Massachusetts court completely misunderstand the reasoning of the landmark 2008 Supreme Court case known as Heller.

"Completely misunderstand" sounds like the SJC better tread lightly when trying a case regarding the 2A as reaffirmed by SCOTUS.

 

[terraformer]

Fine, but I don't know that Mr. Keehn is especially interested in public accolades. I also suspect he's not looking to be thought of as a champion of the Second Amendment. What he is, is a good attorney who is committed to doing everything in his power to help his clients seek justice. It would be wrong to try and read anything more into it than that.

On another note:

Adam Winkler has been tweeting about this decision and made a really good point. We have a unanimous Supreme Court voting to uphold Heller. At this point it would be nearly impossible for them to change direction and reverse themselves in any meaningful way. We may not get the kinds of clarifications we're looking for in many areas, but they've basically taken reversing Heller off the table.

Winkler needs to decide if he is a law prof or a liberal advocate. Because his liberal advocate side makes his law prof side look stupid.

All this does is take "reversing" Heller off the table. It does not prevent them from scoping it to the home, saddling it with licensure such that it's obscenely difficult to practice, protect AWBs, protect high caps. Etc. He is part of the conspiracy Rob is concerned with. ie; Was this really designed to take the courts out of play for the election season.