Win in SCOTUS today..

legaleagle_45 · Mar 21, 2016

CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS

Per Curiam order reversing and remanding the case back to the Massachusetts Supreme Court to determine if a stun gun is an arm protected by the 2nd amendment. The case begins on page 15 of this document:

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

A lengthy concurrence by Thomas and Alito is notable for their scolding of the Massachusetts Supreme Court for their clear defiance of the ruling in Heller and McDonald. :evil:

Spats McGee · Mar 21, 2016

I'm liking this part from page 2:

This reasoning defies our decision in Heller, which rejected as "bordering on the frivolous" the argument "that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment." 554 U. S., at 582. The decision below also does a grave disservice to vulnerable individuals like Caetano who must defend themselves because the State will not.

And from pages 4 and 5:

The state court repeatedly framed the question before it as whether a particular weapon was "in common use at the time' of enactment of the Second Amendment." . . . . In Heller we emphatically rejected such a formulation. We found the argument "that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment" not merely wrong, but "bordering on the frivolous." . . . . Instead, we held that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." . . . . It is hard to imagine language speaking more directly on point. Yet the Supreme Judicial Court did not so much as mention it.

(emphasis in original)

Ouch. That's nothing short of a judicial beat-down.

danez71 · Mar 21, 2016

There's a lot of good stuff in there such as

The lower court’s ill treatment of Heller cannot stand. The reasoning of the Massachusetts court poses a gravethreat to the fundamental right of self-defense. 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

230RN · Mar 21, 2016

So are the soldiers of SCOTUS going to battle it out with the soldiers of The Supreme Judicial Court of Mass.?

I'm not signing this one so nobody will know who posted it.

equin · Mar 21, 2016

Interesting.

HOOfan_1 · Mar 21, 2016

The whole idea that the Second Amendment only applied to weapons available at the time basically puts and expiration date on the Bill of Rights. It's like saying the First Amendment only applied to religions and forms of Press in the 18th century.

It's like saying Freedom of Press doesn't apply to the radio, or television, or internet. It's like saying Freedom of Religion doesn't apply to Mormonism.

It's like saying the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to cars

230RN · Mar 21, 2016

The whole idea that the Second Amendment only applied to weapons available at the time basically puts an expiration date on the Bill of Rights. It's like saying the First Amendment only applied to religions and forms of Press in the 18th century.

Yeah, in my imaginings in Post 4 of SCOTUS versus The Supreme Judicial Court of Mass., I thought Mass. would use flintlocks and pikes, while SCOTUS used M4s and Barretts.

Maybe Mass. should secede?

But let's not get off the rails here. I'm just amused at the concept of the two Courts trying to "enforce" their respective decisions.

Interesting indeed, equin.

I'm not signing this one, either.

ilbob · Mar 21, 2016

the fact that there was not a single justice who dissented is curious, given the strange reasoning some of them have used in the past to justify regulations on firearms.

this ought to open up a lot of states to things like switchblades.

Trent · Mar 21, 2016

While we are now allowed to carry firearms in IL, 'stun guns and tasers' are still prohibited under unlawful use of weapon laws, and those who carry them "loaded" (in a functional state) are subject to severe felony charges.

This may very well open the door for being able to carry a less lethal option in Illinois, as we currently do not have the ability to carry stun guns.

Red Wind · Mar 21, 2016

8-0 looks mighty good!

Hoofan 1 said:
The whole idea that the Second Amendment only applied to weapons available at the time basically puts and expiration date on the Bill of Rights. It's like saying the First Amendment only applied to religions and forms of Press in the 18th century.

It's like saying Freedom of Press doesn't apply to the radio, or television, or internet. It's like saying Freedom of Religion doesn't apply to Mormonism.

It's like saying the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to cars

Excellent!

danez71 · Mar 21, 2016

Red Wind said:
8-0 looks mighty good!

Excellent!

I think theres a couple things going on with that.

1) Scalia was well liked and they are human - mourning and honoring.
2) Maybe some of the other lawyers here can comment (I think we have a judge here too) I think maybe all the members of SCOTUS were a bit offended by the lower courts blatant disregard, or lack of comprehension, of the Heller and McDonald rulings.

Spats McGee · Mar 21, 2016

I tend to think (a slow process for me) that the fact that it's a per curiam (with no signed majority opinion) has more to do with Scalia's death and the impending confirmation fight than anything. I don't think it's so much about honoring or mourning Scalia as it is about not wanting to influence the coming fight. Then again, it may simply be that the more anti-2A justices are mad about having Heller so blatantly ignored, but don't really want to go on record extending the 2A.

danez71 said:
. . . . 2) Maybe some of the other lawyers here can comment (I think we have a judge here too) I think maybe all the members of SCOTUS were a bit offended by the lower courts blatant disregard, or lack of comprehension, of the Heller and McDonald rulings.

My read on this is that it sounds like SCOTUS was mad about blatant disregard for Heller and McDonald. I don't think it would have been so strongly worded if SCOTUS really thought that the Mass Supreme Court just didn't understand.

Aim1 · Mar 21, 2016

Does this decision carry any precedent?

wgp · Mar 21, 2016

I think it's also significant that in this case the "weapon" was carried and used outside of the home.

Rmeju · Mar 21, 2016

While this is certainly a good decision, I was a little concerned that the concurrence revealed that the Court, as a whole, only "grudgingly" vacated the state court's decision in a case where the state court was laughably wrong.

At least it signals the liberal justices' intent, for the time being, to continue following Heller

ATLDave · Mar 21, 2016

Interesting passage from the concurrence:

"As the per curiam opinion recognizes, this is a
conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is
both dangerous and unusual. Because the Court rejects
the lower court’s conclusion that stun guns are “unusual,”
it does not need to consider the lower court’s conclusion
that they are also “dangerous.” See ante, at 1–2. But
make no mistake—the decision below gravely erred on
both grounds. "

AnselHazen · Mar 21, 2016

The smackdown is fabulous but in the end it's been booted back to the Peoples Republic of Mass. Is there a chance this could go well?

Kinda wondering if 230RN will have anything to say.

ATLDave · Mar 21, 2016

Sending cases back to the lower courts that fouled up in the first place is routine. Nobody likes getting reversed a second time, which is what happens if you just repeat the mistake. That gets embarrassing to most judges, even ones that don't like the result.

Blackbeard · Mar 21, 2016

It is encouraging that the left-leaning justices at least appear willing to hold to Heller as valid precedent.

Jeff H · Mar 21, 2016

ATLDave said:
Sending cases back to the lower courts that fouled up in the first place is routine. Nobody likes getting reversed a second time, which is what happens if you just repeat the mistake. That gets embarrassing to most judges, even ones that don't like the result.

Especially when this is what was said about your first decision:

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 selfdefense. 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.

CatManDo · Mar 21, 2016

I think they booted it back to the lower court because they know it will come back to them when SCOTUS has 9 members.

Hypnogator · Mar 21, 2016

I think they booted it back to the lower court because they know it will come back to them when SCOTUS has 9 members.

...and get hit with another unanimous reversal, or even 8 to 1? I don't think so!

I love how this case forced the rather left-leaning female justices to choose between their disdain of the 2nd Amendment and upholding the criminalization of a stalking/assault/domestic violence victim for defending herself when the state wouldn't. :neener:

natman · Mar 21, 2016

ilbob said:
the fact that there was not a single justice who dissented is curious, given the strange reasoning some of them have used in the past to justify regulations on firearms.

It's almost irrelevant that this case happens to be about the Second Amendment. The notion that the constitution applies only to 18th century technology is so preposterous that none of the SCOTUS judges are going to buy it. But the real issue here is the lesser court ignoring the crystal clear language on the subject supplied by Heller and in the process defying SCOTUS.

None of the Supremes are going to stand for that.

Speedo66 · Mar 22, 2016

I think the unanimous decision may have to do with power. LOL

"Hey, we decided, split or not, that that's the law of the land. Little state courts like you better not mess with our decisions."

Hypnogator · Mar 22, 2016

"Hey, we decided, split or not, that that's the law of the land. Little state courts like you better not mess with our decisions."

Perhaps a bit inelegantly put, but accurate nonetheless!

Win in SCOTUS today..

Member

Moderator

Member

2A was "political" when it was first adopted.

Member

Member

2A was "political" when it was first adopted.

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads