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

[Knuckle Dragger]

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?

Totally unrelated. The Orders List usually contains orders in many cases and issues. The this particualr document contained orders in dozens of cases. Caetano doesn't start until page 15. Everything before that is irrelevant.

 

[MachineHead]

The more states start going towards constitutional carry the more chance we'll someday see a case challenging LTCs/LTC fees when the 4473 is effectively the only background check necessary, if they still require one. It really is no different than a poll tax. If it takes $$$ to exercise a right, then it's not really a right.

 

[economist]

Concerns aside, this is awesome.

 

[pastera]

The entire decision sends tingles up my leg - so much fuel. However, the following is quite chilling:

This Court’s grudging per curiam now sends the case back to that same court. And the consequences for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for self-defense. See Pet. for Cert. 14.

Are they signaling a willingness to entertain a case against lifetime loss of rights for 2+ years?

 

[soam]

The entire decision sends tingles up my leg - so much fuel. However, the following is quite chilling:



Are they signaling a willingness to entertain a case against lifetime loss of rights for 2+ years?

I think they're basically saying "we have to remand this to the SJC because that's how it's supposed to work, but we don't trust these nitwits to get it right even after we explained it to them with small words and diagrams."

 

[Admin]

A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deployits prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The SupremeJudicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds. This Court’s grudging per curiam now sends the case back to that same court. And the consequences for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for self-defense. See Pet. for Cert. 14.

If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.

Pretty sad

 

[economist]

The Alito and Thomas opinion is amazing. How the Mass AWB, NY's "safe act", or even the 1986 full-auto ban could survive their view is hard to see. If a few hundred thousand stun guns in lawful hands is all it takes to make a ban unacceptable, then how in the world can any ban of substance stand up? I know this is not how it works, but this is just so very very wonderful it is hard not to extrapolate.

 

[bigblue]

Are they signaling a willingness to entertain a case against lifetime loss of rights for 2+ years?

If you read Thomas' recent comments and questions (from when he finally opened his mouth after a decade), he did visit whether there was any other right you could be barred for life from executing. Food for thought.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The more states start going towards constitutional carry the more chance we'll someday see a case challenging LTCs/LTC fees when the 4473 is effectively the only background check necessary, if they still require one. It really is no different than a poll tax. If it takes $$$ to exercise a right, then it's not really a right.

The federal courts have already ruled that the many-hundreds fees for a NYC pistol permit are not a violation of the constitution. Attorney David Jensen brought the losing case.

The Alito and Thomas opinion is amazing. How the Mass AWB, NY's "safe act", or even the 1986 full-auto ban could survive their view is hard to see.

Denial of cert (for example, the Highland Park AWB) provides a convenient mechanism to leave the status-quo untouched when the desired outcome is in direct contradiction to the result dictated by intellectually sound legal analysis.

 

[oldguy68]

To Mr. Benjamin H. Keehn,
You are truly a man among men!
Our founding fathers fighting spirit is alive in men such as yourself!
What a selfless act you have done to correct an injustice!
Bravo and wishing you many great things in your life!!

 

[Chevy 2 65]

The federal courts have already ruled that the many-hundreds fees for a NYC pistol permit are not a violation of the constitution. Attorney David Jensen brought the losing case.

SCOTUS?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

To Mr. Benjamin H. Keehn,
You are truly a man among men!
Our founding fathers fighting spirit is alive in men such as yourself!
What a selfless act you have done to correct an injustice!
Bravo and wishing you many great things in your life!!

I hope that being a "SCOTUS winner" helps this attorney establish a lucrative private practice once he tires of doing public defense work.

 

[TayNinh_66]

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

body slammed

 

[jar]

SCOTUS?

Cert petition denied June 2, 2014. The case was Kwong v de Blasio http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/13-993.htm

 

[bfm]

As nice as the SC message was I really doubt we will see any real sweeping change in MA firearms laws.

My guess for a best outcome for change in law is for stun guns to be put in the FID card category the way pepperspray were for a number of years.

I think it would take an actual SC decision, that they have seemed unwilling to take on, to make any change bigger than that in our laws.

 

[Garys]

This.

I hope that being a "SCOTUS winner" helps this attorney establish a lucrative private practice once he tires of doing public defense work.

 

[Inside Out]

The paranoid part of me considers the possibility that this was designed as a harmless distracter by the anti-2A folks on the bench, issued to convince those confirming the next SCOTUS justice that there is a balanced and intellectually sound view of the 2A and stare decisis on the bench.

Interesting thought. I've always believed the imminent possibility of "overturning" Heller has been very low -- stare decisis, etc. But because most Supreme Court law is at the margins -- narrow rulings applied to specific facts -- I think the bigger risk is a future Court interpreting Heller to allow "reasonable restrictions" that aren't very reasonable.

Viewed from that perspective, the liberal wing doesn't give up very much with this ruling, and in fact it's hard to believe given the dissents in Heller that they would concede ground so easily. Ideologies aside, they must have believed the SJC decision was so inconsistent with the broad strokes of established precedent (like it or not) that it required a public rebuke. The per curiam issuance gives individual liberal-bloc justices plenty of wiggle room in the future.

All of that said I'd certainly rather have this decision than the opposite result -- congrats to all involved!

 

[bigblue]

As nice as the SC message was I really doubt we will see any real sweeping change in MA firearms laws.

My guess for a best outcome for change in law is for stun guns to be put in the FID card category the way pepperspray were for a number of years.

I think it would take an actual SC decision, that they have seemed unwilling to take on, to make any change bigger than that in our laws.

I do not believe that they were unwilling to take the case. They granted cert but considered the matter settled law per Heller.

 

[bfm]

I do not believe that they were unwilling to take the case. They granted cert but considered the matter settled law per Heller.

Understood, I meant all the talk of this opening up a lot of new ground for repealing other parts of the MA (and other state) firearms laws. I do not see that happening just from this. It would require them hearing one of the cases specifically about bans on specific firearms or magazine limits.

I also would be surprised if anything more than working them into the existing laws happened. I do not expect to see unlicensed access to stun guns or tasers come from this.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I think the bigger risk is a future Court interpreting Heller to allow "reasonable restrictions" that aren't very reasonable.

Or just deny certs as various states and cities adopt laws in clear violation of Heller/McDonald.

 

[TayNinh_66]

Thus, reaffirming their stance on the 2A only this time it's unanimous with an 8-0 decision! Maybe it was in honor of Scalia, but it was nonetheless 8-0.

Not necessarily. Alito wrote "This Court’s grudging per curiam nowsends the case back to that same court." Sort of hinting that it wasn't unanimous but it's very telling that no dissents were written so it's back to reading tea leaves trying to figure out their 2A position. It is exceedingly clear that the MA SJC twisted Heller into knots to fit their decision and SCOTUS wasn't having any of it.

 

[Inside Out]

Or just deny certs as various states and cities adopt laws in clear violation of Heller/McDonald.

Yep. That's much easier and far less controversial.

 

[slipknot]

Great news!

might be too early for this though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h505oHt17Yw

 

[beach]

The paranoid part of me considers the possibility that this was designed as a harmless distracter by the anti-2A folks on the bench, issued to convince those confirming the next SCOTUS justice that there is a balanced and intellectually sound view of the 2A and stare decisis on the bench.

I agree, the left has sinister motives. 2nd amendment drives voter turnout, the see high voter turnout on the right, don't forget the left used the Irs to hinder voter turnout, the right is pissed st recent court rulings.

We can celebrate but must remain vigilant

 

[economist]

Not necessarily. Alito wrote "This Court’s grudging per curiam nowsends the case back to that same court." Sort of hinting that it wasn't unanimous but it's very telling that no dissents were written so it's back to reading tea leaves trying to figure out their 2A position. It is exceedingly clear that the MA SJC twisted Heller into knots to fit their decision and SCOTUS wasn't having any of it.

I thought "per curium" meant unanimous. I can't tell what "grudging" means here.

 

[jasons]

I thought "per curium" meant unanimous. I can't tell what "grudging" means here.

I read it as "grudgingly per curium" in that there was at least one justice who didn't want to agree but had no way to squirm out of it. Or maybe some that didn't want to remand. Maybe it was a compromise between the two.

 

[NewGuyRay]

For all those asking about the decision's impact on the AWB, I suspect there is a quite large chasm between a decision reaffirming all bearable arms as being protected by the 2A and a decision dictating the level of scrutiny to be applied to regulating the arms under the 2A.

So while a decision declaring stun guns to be covered under the 2A, I assume there is still plenty of room for the state to regulate their possession.

Does this decision have any impact on previous appellate decisions' ability to stand as precedent within districts where assault weapons were found to not be protected under the 2A? Can new cases be filed in those districts seeking to nullify or moot previous appellate decisions using Caetano as precedent?

 

[jtnf]

I read it as "grudgingly per curium" in that there was at least one justice who didn't want to agree but had no way to squirm out of it. Or maybe some that didn't want to remand. Maybe it was a compromise between the two.

I read it as grudgingly remanded. I'll reread when I get a real computer in my hands.

 

[TayNinh_66]

I thought "per curium" meant unanimous. I can't tell what "grudging" means here.

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, per curium
7 to 2 vote. Breyer and Souter dissented

(grudging means we will never penetrate the cloak of invisibility)

 

[JohnZ]

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?

I'd love to see the mental gymnastics it takes to say a non-lethal weapon is dangerous but a lethal one is not.