Be respectful of others' views and choices.
 #107553  by astro_wanabe
 
SCOTUS has just released a unanimous decision in a case Caetano v. Massachusetts ruling that the state's ban on stun guns is unconstitutional. It is a rather harsh (in relative terms of legalese) smack down of the state's Supreme Judicial Court. This short brief is really worth a read, and may have implications in many upcoming 2A cases as it gives clarity to how the court wants to have its precedent viewed.

Also, closer to home, it would likely be a key instrument in overturning New Castle County's stun gun ban. I intend to review the decision more closely and believe I may attend the County Council's meeting tomorrow evening (3/22 @ 6:30 - same time as monthly DELOC meeting) to urge them to repeal their ban before the county's residents are subjected to costly and pointless litigation.

Here is the per curiam decision and concurring opinion of Justice Alito:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15 ... 8_aplc.pdf
 #107555  by astro_wanabe
 
Actually, I may have jumped the gun a bit - they didn't actually rule on the constitutionality of the ban, only that the state court's argument / application of Heller was absolutely horrid. Or more accurately: "The explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent." The case was remanded so I suppose the state is free to re-try it using a different argument. This may require quite a bit more research to see how the per curiam decision actually would apply to future cases, especially regarding stun guns specifically. Think I'll just attend the DELOC meeting tomorrow and read this over a bit more.
 #107556  by GatorDude
 
The actual decision is not very helpful. Unfortunately.

Read the concurring opinions for a better view of why. The concurring opinion goes to the heart of the question regarding the fundamental constitutional flaw in the outright ban of stun guns.
 #107558  by pick_six
 
still reading this, in 2 parts.

the first, which all 8 justices agree, is shooting down the argument that you have to own a model 1789 or older to be protected by the the 2a.

Bbut the further opinion, alito and thomas, actually seem to get pretty snappy back at the Massholes. granted this is but 2 of the 8, they go well! cudos A&T.

of interest, they say that saying you can buy a real firearm, instead of a taser, is poor logic.

they say that banning a whole class of firearms, because something else is available, is not permitted. that is in section III.

i aint a lawyer, but that seems to slap the assault rifle / semi-auto / autoloader bans right in the face. md/ca/il/etc.
The Su­preme Judicial Court suggested that Caetano could have simply gotten a firearm to defend herself. 470 Mass., at 783, 26 N. E. 3d, at 695. But the right to bear other weap­ons is “no answer” to a ban on the possession of protected arms. Heller, 554 U. S., at 629.
additionally, they seem to encourage "less-then-lethal" things like stun guns, to the level of personal limits on the level of force. maybe someone who want to stop, but not kill (not that we'd all agree this is best. you can read the alito/thomas part yourself)

they also address the inability of the state (all .gov) to protect citizens. the .gov has no liability for failing to protect you. but, A&T state that if they state can not protect you, they should also not limit your ability to protect yourself.
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 deploy its 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 Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsi­
est 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.
i guess only time will tell, and 6-7 other justices. but not the worst thing i've read. and it also appears that 2 of the critical heller justices are reminding the lower courts of heller, and saying you need to pay attention! and read it the way we intended it!

again... not a lawyer! just my take on this.
 #107560  by Boots
 
I see Pick_Six liked the same part of Justice Alito's opinion that I did!

Here it is again because it bears repeating...

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 deploy its 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 Supreme Judicial 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.
 #107570  by pick_six
 
24 hours, and my, world event's have taken a turn.

the state, even if it's not ours, this time, is shown to be unable to protect its citizens. and yeah, crazy or sane/determined folks will do evil, no matter what.

the play on this, as relates to terror events, and even non-terror domestic stuff, will be interesting.

allow citizens to be armed, and have a chance to defend themselves? as A&T say.

or claim that you have to disarm all because you can't tell the good from the bad? and that one guy COULD be bad. (the CaliMaHiNyNjIlCt approach, probably the path supported by 3+ other SCOTUS justices. and 1 nominee)
Boots wrote:I see Pick_Six liked the same part of Justice Alito's opinion that I did!

Here it is again because it bears repeating...

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 deploy its 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 Supreme Judicial 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.
 #107572  by pick_six
 
that is absolutely correct. and i think why alito and thomas wanted to put out their ruling. while it agrees with the other 6, it goes much further in tone, and blunt statement.

being exempt from liability, should a .gov agency be able to stop individuals of some of the most effective means of self defense? firearms, or in this case, arms (taser/stun guns).
josephjanes wrote:See 2005 SCOTUS case, Castle Rock, CO v. Jessica Gonzalez, which found , in essence, that the state has no duty to protect it's citizens. (A duty to protect would create a liability for failure to fulfill that duty.)