Commonwealth v. Caetano

Commonwealth v. Caetano

Basically homeless guy owns a stun gun for self defenese and gets popped. Mass. in all its wisdom criminalizes their mere possession. He is convicted in the trial court and appeals directly to the Mass Supreme Court.



This Court has solicited amicus briefs on the following two questions:

Whether G. L. ch. 140, s. 131J, which criminalizes the private possession of so-called stun guns, infringes on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as defined by the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions.
Whether, and how, the Second Amendment protection applies outside one’s home in the case of a homeless person.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ght-to-own-and-carry-a-stun-in-massachusetts/

Case Docket: (Available at http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/search_number.php?dno=SJC-11718&get=Search)

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
for the Commonwealth
Case Docket

COMMONWEALTH vs. JAIME CAETANO
SJC-11718

CASE HEADER
Case Status Blue brief(s) filed, awaiting red Status Date 08/22/2014
Nature Crime: Possession of Gun Entry Date 07/17/2014
Appellant Defendant Case Type Criminal
Brief Status Awaiting red brief Brief Due 11/10/2014
Quorum

AC/SJ Number 2014-P-0105 Citation
DAR/FAR Number DAR-22613 Lower Ct Number
Lower Court Framingham District, MI Lower Ct Judge Robert V. Greco, J.
Route to SJC Direct Appellate Review

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Transcripts received: 3 volumes, 2 sets (on CD and papers). Transcripts dates: 6/4/13, 7/10/13 and 9/26/13.

INVOLVED PARTY

Commonwealth
Plaintiff/Appellee
Awaiting red brief
1 Extension, 42 Days
James W. Sahakian, A.D.A.
Michael Albert Kaneb, A.D.A.

Jaime Caetano
Defendant/Appellant
Blue brief & appendix filed
1 Extension, 23 Days
Benjamin H. Keehn, Esquire
Arming Women Ahainst Rape and En

Amicus
Amicus brief filed

Lisa J. Steele, Esquire
Eugene Volokh
Out-of-state counsel for amicus

Michael E. Rosman
Out-of-state counsel for amicus

DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
07/17/2014 #1 Entered. Notice to counsel.
07/17/2014 Transferred from Appeals Court: None. No briefs filed in Appeals Court.
07/18/2014 #2 ANNOUNCEMENT: The Justices are soliciting amicus briefs. Whether G. L. c. 140, § 131J, which criminalizes the private possession of so-called stun guns, infringes on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as defined by the Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald decisions; whether, and how, the Second Amendment protection applies outside one's home in the case of a homeless person.
07/21/2014 #3 MOTION to extend to 08/29/2014 filing of brief of Jaime Caetano by Benjamin H. Keehn, Esquire. (ALLOWED to August 29, 2014)
08/22/2014 #4 SERVICE of brief & appendix for Defendant/Appellant Jaime Caetano by Benjamin H. Keehn.
09/02/2014 #5 MOTION TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF filed for Arming Women Against Rape and Endangerment by Lisa J. Steele, Esquire. (ALLOWED)
09/02/2014 #6 SERVICE of amicus brief for Amicus Arming Women Against Rape and Endangerment by Lisa J. Steele.
09/05/2014 #7 MOTION to extend to 11/10/2014 filing of brief of Commonwealth by Michael A. Kaneb, A.D.A. (ALLOWED to November 10, 2014)
09/08/2014 #8 Service of Substitute Brief and Record Appendix for the Defendant by Denjamin H. Keehn, Esquire.[/

Interesting case. Let's see if they can come up with a way to say the homeless person does not have a right to self defense.

Very interesting angle involved here. This will be interesting how they wrangle arms outside the home here. Any ruling along the lines of allowing a stun gun (defined as an arm) outside the home will have an immediate translation from 'non-lethal' arms to all other types of arms.

krucam said:

Very interesting angle involved here. This will be interesting how they wrangle arms outside the home here. Any ruling along the lines of allowing a stun gun (defined as an arm) outside the home will have an immediate translation from 'non-lethal' arms to all other types of arms.

Click to expand...

Maybe Michigan Appeals Court already held a stun gun is protected is protected in 2012.

Very interesting argument.

Either a man is stripped of his rights for not owning a home, or the Second Amendment must extend beyond.

I'll be watching this closely.

Verbotene said:

Very interesting argument.



Either a man is stripped of his rights for not owning a home, or the Second Amendment must extend beyond.



I'll be watching this closely.

Click to expand...

A home bound 2nd amendment should and would never stand.

Verbotene said:

Very interesting argument.

Either a man is stripped of his rights for not owning a home, or the Second Amendment must extend beyond.

I'll be watching this closely.

Click to expand...

Very incisive summary.

There are three interesting angles to this case, BTW, the defendeant is a woman, not a man.

1) we have the standard 2A outside the home issue
2) we have the stun gun issue possession of which is illegal in MA except for police
3) we have the homeless issue, although I'm not sure it will come up.

Possession of any firearm requires a license issued by the police in one's town of residence. What does a homeless person who doesn't have a residence do?

Eugene Volokh & others of Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment (AWARE) submitted an Amicus in support last week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ght-to-own-and-carry-a-stun-in-massachusetts/

Eugene Volokh said:

I’m delighted to report that Michael Rosman and Michelle Scott of the Center for Individual Rights, Lisa Steele of AWARE (Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment), and I have filed an amicus brief on behalf of AWARE in Commonwealth v. Caetano, a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case dealing with the Second Amendment and stun guns.

Click to expand...

The Amicus:
http://www.cir-usa.org/legal_docs/caetano_amicus_brief.pdf

krucam said:

Eugene Volokh & others of Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment (AWARE) submitted an Amicus in support last week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ght-to-own-and-carry-a-stun-in-massachusetts/



The Amicus:
http://www.cir-usa.org/legal_docs/caetano_amicus_brief.pdf

Click to expand...

Thanks for the post, Mark. That's a good read and it is an interesting case that bears watching closely

Oral arguments in this case will be held on Tuesday and webcast here. A replay will be available on-line. Comm2A's amicus brief is here.

Form more information: Comm v. Caetano

This seems like it could be a very good vehicle for outside the home.

Dogabutila said:

This seems like it could be a very good vehicle for outside the home.

Click to expand...

This is GREAT vehicle for outside the home.

Seems to me, admittedly based on a quick reading, a final ruling in favor of Caetano might result in a number of states passing o.k. to “bear” legislation restricting the permissible “arm” to a “non-lethal” weapon.

Regards
Jack

Nice case...And it seems as though the attorney filing this Amicus Curiae is smarter than Alan Gura.

JAIME CAETANO,
Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
Appellee.

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF ARMING WOMEN AGAINST RAPE & ENDANGERMENT


" Moreover, the Court’s identifying as “presumptively lawful” a ban on carrying “in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” and a ban on “concealed carry,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27 & n.26, implicitly recognizes that open carrying in other public places would be protected. Any mention of concealed carrying and carrying in sensitive places would have been superfluous if the Second Amendment were limited to the home. "

777GSOTB said:

Nice case...And it seems as though the attorney filing this Amicus Curiae is smarter than Alan Gura.

JAIME CAETANO,
Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
Appellee.

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF ARMING WOMEN AGAINST RAPE & ENDANGERMENT


" Moreover, the Court’s identifying as “presumptively lawful” a ban on carrying “in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” and a ban on “concealed carry,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27 & n.26, implicitly recognizes that open carrying in other public places would be protected. Any mention of concealed carrying and carrying in sensitive places would have been superfluous if the Second Amendment were limited to the home. "

Click to expand...

Care to substantiate your assertion about Alan Gura? Please name me one attorney who has carried the cause of the Second Amendment further or more substantially...

Verbotene said:

Very interesting argument.

Either a man is stripped of his rights for not owning a home, or the Second Amendment must extend beyond.

I'll be watching this closely.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

This is GREAT vehicle for outside the home.

Click to expand...

I never though of this angle of rights of homeless citizens. Tie an enumerated right to having a home reeks of rights only for "landed gentry". Hope amicus briefs come from everyone on this. This could get us beyond what Heller has carved out.

I like the emphasis on arms meaning all types of arms both offensive and defensive (includes body armor) and arms of "convenience" (kitchen knives, baseball bats, pocket knives) because it makes it much harder to craft legislation that bans some arms but not all arms.

Hell, we debated this scenario back in 2010 - post McDonald - but wrt an actual firearm. I wish my MDS search-fu were strong enough to find it.

Can MSI just file an amicus by asking the court to read an old MDS thread, even if the admins remove references to great hair and bad horses?

Dogabutila said:

This seems like it could be a very good vehicle for outside the home.

Click to expand...

No need to reach the public carry question, at all, because once the stun ban is found unconstitutional, there are no other laws she could have broken.

Amici note that the court does not need to reach the public carry question. They argue that the complete ban on stun guns for non-governmental protection - in all places, at all times - is facially unconstitutional. Because there are no explicit bans on carrying a stun gun in public (none are allowed, so it follows that no regulation exists to regulate the carriage of them), ruling against the complete stun gun ban effectively absolves Caetano of the accused crime.

So the court could easily escape the public carry question, if they chose. Should Mass try to regulate stun guns like guns - license, etc. - then that would be another issue to litigate in the future. But for now, this is more a Heller-esque (or Parker/Palmer) where a complete ban is at stake.