A smackdown of the Massachusetts courts (and legislature) for convicting a woman for carrying a stun gun for self-defense.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
IMHO, this is profound, for several reasons.
1) Reinforces that 2nd Amendment protected arms are not limited to what the founders might have been able to imagine.
2) Ditto, that 2nd Amendment protected arms are not limited to only those useful to militia purposes.
3) This was a unanimous decision. The Supreme Court tends to be loyal to its own decisions over modest (multi-decade) timeframes, regardless of court balance, politics or current events. No dissent from liberals on this. It helped that this was about non-lethal self defense and the aggrieved was a woman and a victim of domestic violence. Regardless of why, this decision, layered on top of Heller, goes a long way to protecting our 2nd Amendment rights.
If you read the final two paragraphs of the decision, it's a giant "F.U." to the Massachusetts courts:
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.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
IMHO, this is profound, for several reasons.
1) Reinforces that 2nd Amendment protected arms are not limited to what the founders might have been able to imagine.
2) Ditto, that 2nd Amendment protected arms are not limited to only those useful to militia purposes.
3) This was a unanimous decision. The Supreme Court tends to be loyal to its own decisions over modest (multi-decade) timeframes, regardless of court balance, politics or current events. No dissent from liberals on this. It helped that this was about non-lethal self defense and the aggrieved was a woman and a victim of domestic violence. Regardless of why, this decision, layered on top of Heller, goes a long way to protecting our 2nd Amendment rights.
If you read the final two paragraphs of the decision, it's a giant "F.U." to the Massachusetts courts:
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.
Last edited:
