« "Ban this dangerous weapon right now" | Main | Interesting contrast in California »
Supreme Court speaks out (a bit) on 2A
Caetano v. Massachusetts. A per curiam (very short opinion not signed by a specific Justice, suggesting the answer was pretty obvious and indisputable). The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had held that stun guns were entirely outside the Second Amendment. The US Supreme Court reverses. (1) The 2A protects arms that were not in common use at the time of the Framing; (2) the exception for limiting carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons" does not apply, at least when the argument is the arm was "unusual" at the time of the Framing; (3) the fact that the arm in question has little military use does not take it outside the 2A.
Alito and Thomas concur (as I recall, concurrences are very rare in per curiams) and explain the affair at greater length. The defendant obtained the stun gun to protect herself against an abusive ex-boyfriend, and it worked for that purpose. The concurrence suggests that the case shouldn't have been remanded to Massachusetts for further action, the law should have been held unconstitutional, period, with no further consideration. The ending is very nice:
"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 conse quences 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."
4 Comments | Leave a comment
What would you expect when the Courts overstep their authority and interpret the documents that create them? What can you expect with ignorant decisions like Barron v Baltimore? If the SC hadn't fouled things up with Barron we would not see as much of this kind of crap.
As per Fed 84, the feds were never given ANY authority to legislate in the areas covered by the BoR. Beyond that, Rights come from the Creator and can never be legitimately infringed by man-created government. And please don't go to the cliched can't yell fire in a crowded theater. For one the quote is wrong and in another freedom of speech is a social contract among the members of society NOT a right. Note that even the Constitution does not refer to freedom of speech or freedom of the press as rights.
Good to see the Court making correct decisions. Sad that the Court caused the problems in the first place by making incorrect decisions.
These opinions contain many quite helpful quotes for use in future pro second amendment litigation.
after reading the decision my reaction was WOW, theu really stuck it to the lower court
Notice how often Alito references the right to bear arms (as opposed to the right to keep arms). Notice that the defendant was arrested carrying the stun gun outside a store (that is to say, a public area). Alito is trying to portray Heller/McDonald as placing public carriage of an arm outside the scope of government power. We already knew/suspected that Alito and Thomas would support public carriage, but it's nice to see strong evidence supporting that belief.