Commonwealth v. Caetano

Patrick · Mar 3, 2015

Kharn said:
...
The first chemical battery (voltaic pile) was invented in 1800, so it's not like the founders could have known the idea of carrying an electric charge with you wherever you went. Maybe the court should have looked at truncheons and the like.

"In accord with that analysis we must determine whether ~~a stun gun~~ an online blog is the type of ~~weapon~~ speech contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the ~~Second~~ First Amendment.[...] We note that that ~~the first patent for stun gun was filed in 1972~~ Al Gore invented the internet in 1994. [...] The recent invention of ~~this weapon~~ electronic publishing clearly postdates the period relevant to our analysis. "

Turn in your keyboards, citizens. You need a permit for that.

Armadillofz1 · Mar 3, 2015

squirrels said:
Well sh!t...easy enough solution...he needs to go buy a gun.

This just makes me angry...a weapon designed around non-lethal self-defense is not protected under 2A, but a lethal weapon is?? What kind of sense does that make??

Who are these people, and how do they get to these positions??

This is a cop-out ruling, plain and simple...they want to avoid ruling on the "self defense" angle so they copped out and focused on the nature of the weapon.

Agreed. However, how does one do that without an address? 4473 requires that. vicious loop.

esqappellate · Mar 3, 2015

Not_an_outlaw said:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...d-amendment/P1cB1ppu1o7WUMbqnQ43MK/story.html

Thanks for the post. Under Heller modern firearms, including high powered semi auto pistols and Dirty Harry's .44 magnum are covered by the 2d Amendment. Yet, a non-lethal stun gun used for self defense is not?! These guys are truly hopeless.

esqappellate · Mar 3, 2015

Patrick said:
"In accord with that analysis we must determine whether ~~a stun gun~~ an online blog is the type of ~~weapon~~ speech contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the ~~Second~~ First Amendment.[...] We note that that ~~the first patent for stun gun was filed in 1972~~ Al Gore invented the internet in 1994. [...] The recent invention of ~~this weapon~~ electronic publishing clearly postdates the period relevant to our analysis. "

Turn in your keyboards, citizens. You need a permit for that.

Not just a permit, they can ban the keyboard completely. Get out your quill pens, boys, you are going to need them.

Boxcab · Mar 3, 2015

I assume appeal is on the table?

.

esqappellate · Mar 3, 2015

Boxcab said:
I assume appeal is on the table?

.

We shall see. A petition for cert would be due in 90 days.

'04 Cummins · Mar 3, 2015

"The Massachusetts court said the Second Amendment protections did not apply to stun guns because, among other reasons, they were “thoroughly modern” inventions that were not in common use at the time the Second Amendment was enacted in 1789."

SMH... :mad54:

Maestro Pistolero · Mar 3, 2015

The Supreme Court has said in Heller versus DC that the second amendment extends, prima facia, to any instrument that constitutes a bearable arm. How on earth can the court square this with that unequivocal statement?

Brooklyn · Mar 3, 2015

No surprise.. there is no such thing as legal reasoning..

esqappellate · Mar 3, 2015

Brooklyn said:
No surprise.. there is no such thing as legal reasoning..

This is what is called in the trade as "result oriented" reasoning. Hard to dignify it as "reasoning"

FlatsFlite · Mar 3, 2015

Patrick said:
"In accord with that analysis we must determine whether ~~a stun gun~~ an online blog is the type of ~~weapon~~ speech contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the ~~Second~~ First Amendment.[...] We note that that ~~the first patent for stun gun was filed in 1972~~ Al Gore invented the internet in 1994. [...] The recent invention of ~~this weapon~~ electronic publishing clearly postdates the period relevant to our analysis. "

Turn in your keyboards, citizens. You need a permit for that.

This needs to be in the next petition.

Brooklyn · Mar 3, 2015

esqappellate said:
This is what is called in the trade as "result oriented" reasoning. Hard to dignify it as "reasoning"

In my trade is called something less polite --

malpractice...

But when judging becomes a trade....its to be expected..

Let's hope the damage can be reversed ..

danb · Mar 3, 2015

Brooklyn said:
In my trade is called something less polite --

malpractice...

But when judging becomes a trade....its to be expected..

Let's hope the damage can be reversed ..

Obviously you are not in one of the following: accounting; statistics; economics; finance; middle to upper management at any corporation; politics; government or law...

Hate to say it, but I have also seen doctors, and those in "hard" sciences engage some results oriented reasoning too (confirmation bias). Sometimes an advanced degree just means you are better at making your biases sound educated.

Unfortunately, I doubt the SCT will take this case, so this decision will linger for a while.

Patrick · Mar 4, 2015

FlatsFlite said:
This needs to be in the next petition.

I'm beginning to wonder if SCOTUS is avoiding gun questions because they are too narrow?

Conventional wisdom is this court wants narrow issues, but they answered Heller and McDonald in broader terms than the question posed. Hell, in Heller Scalia all but complained that the question of whether a permit is even constitutional would have been answered, had plaintiff counsel simply asked the question.

Citizen's United was also quite broad in application. So was Lawrence (the government has no role banning sodomy between consenting adults), and Fischer (challenges to affirmative action for school admissions requires strict scrutiny analysis - dooming most programs).

When a core right is implicated, the court does not seem the least bit nervous stepping in and setting down the law in broad terms. Fischer was only 13 pages long, but quickly established that pretty much every college admissions program - everywhere in the USA - was doing it wrong. School administrators are still trying to figure out how to adjust, and basically in many cases are saying they cannot. That's pretty broad.

I am not saying this case is "the one". Not by a long shot. But the issues here have me wondering aloud if the justices are waiting for more than a simple narrow single-question appeal.

This judgement sets up a few questions:

- Can you require a permit to keep a defensive device (Mass law)?
- Does the right to bear extend outside the home?
- Can the right to bear require a permit, and if so, can the right be denied to a person unable to pay the fees and meet the requirements (homeless)?
- Does the right extend to modern arms, and what does that mean?

This in addition to the ever-present, "please tell the courts again how to evaluate these things."

It'd be interesting to see this one brought forward trying to get the client off using the "any/all" approach. The court could review and rule on one, or on all questions. Counsel has an obligation to their client, not to us. Williams (MD Carry case) was pretty much one question, because the judge limited his ruling. Not here. Just wondering if a case like this sets up a petition that by necessity would involve a pretty wide range of issues.

Maybe the justices don't want to slug 2A out one case a time over years and years. Maybe they want to cement the borders of this right fully, and soon.

Yes - the thought is impatient and impertinent, but what fun is the internet on a rainy day without a little of both?

Z_Man · Mar 4, 2015

'04 Cummins said:
"The Massachusetts court said the Second Amendment protections did not apply to stun guns because, among other reasons, they were “thoroughly modern” inventions that were not in common use at the time the Second Amendment was enacted in 1789."

SMH...

by that logic, free speech on the internet would not apply.....

I think that might be the one thing liberals would complain about infringing...

Brooklyn · Mar 4, 2015

danb said:
Obviously you are not in one of the following: accounting; statistics; economics; finance; middle to upper management at any corporation; politics; government or law...

Hate to say it, but I have also seen doctors, and those in "hard" sciences engage some results oriented reasoning too (confirmation bias). Sometimes an advanced degree just means you are better at making your biases sound educated.

Unfortunately, I doubt the SCT will take this case, so this decision will linger for a while.

Yes but its still malpractice. They just get away with it..until the bridge fails anyway.

Brooklyn · Mar 4, 2015

It occurs to me that every case that the lower courts bork up creates s list of consequences for SCOTUS to ponder.. they are going to want to know the implications of any decision.

This way they will not need to rely on briefs.. and can demand of the state real answers..to all the questions they ducked in the lower courts... sounds like Scalias game...

danb · Mar 4, 2015

Brooklyn said:
It occurs to me that every case that the lower courts bork up creates s list of consequences for SCOTUS to ponder.. they are going to want to know the implications of any decision.

This way they will not need to rely on briefs.. and can demand of the state real answers..to all the questions they ducked in the lower courts... sounds like Scalias game...

I think that this is a key reason that they passed on carry cases until - they saw the results in IL. There were other good reasons, like waiting on Peruta. But now they can see the results of the policy change.

Elliotte · Mar 4, 2015

Patrick said:
I'm beginning to wonder if SCOTUS is avoiding gun questions because they are too narrow?

Conventional wisdom is this court wants narrow issues, but they answered Heller and McDonald in broader terms than the question posed. Hell, in Heller Scalia all but complained that the question of whether a permit is even constitutional would have been answered, had plaintiff counsel simply asked the question.

Citizen's United was also quite broad in application. So was Lawrence (the government has no role banning sodomy between consenting adults), and Fischer (challenges to affirmative action for school admissions requires strict scrutiny analysis - dooming most programs).

When a core right is implicated, the court does not seem the least bit nervous stepping in and setting down the law in broad terms. Fischer was only 13 pages long, but quickly established that pretty much every college admissions program - everywhere in the USA - was doing it wrong. School administrators are still trying to figure out how to adjust, and basically in many cases are saying they cannot. That's pretty broad.

I am not saying this case is "the one". Not by a long shot. But the issues here have me wondering aloud if the justices are waiting for more than a simple narrow single-question appeal.

This judgement sets up a few questions:

- Can you require a permit to keep a defensive device (Mass law)?
- Does the right to bear extend outside the home?
- Can the right to bear require a permit, and if so, can the right be denied to a person unable to pay the fees and meet the requirements (homeless)?
- Does the right extend to modern arms, and what does that mean?

This in addition to the ever-present, "please tell the courts again how to evaluate these things."

It'd be interesting to see this one brought forward trying to get the client off using the "any/all" approach. The court could review and rule on one, or on all questions. Counsel has an obligation to their client, not to us. Williams (MD Carry case) was pretty much one question, because the judge limited his ruling. Not here. Just wondering if a case like this sets up a petition that by necessity would involve a pretty wide range of issues.

Maybe the justices don't want to slug 2A out one case a time over years and years. Maybe they want to cement the borders of this right fully, and soon.

Yes - the thought is impatient and impertinent, but what fun is the internet on a rainy day without a little of both?

Maybe the court will take Jackson vs. San Francisco http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/jacksonvsanfran/
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=84995
if for no other reason than to lay out the process for reviewing and judging 2A cases since so many courts/judges decided to ignore the majority ruling in Heller and instead use Breyer's minority opinion.

Inigoes · Mar 4, 2015

Elliotte said:
Maybe the court will take Jackson vs. San Francisco http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/jacksonvsanfran/
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=84995
if for no other reason than to lay out the process for reviewing and judging 2A cases since so many courts/judges decided to ignore the majority ruling in Heller and instead use Breyer's minority opinion.

Plenty of Amici in that case

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-704.htm

Commonwealth v. Caetano

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

President, MSI

MSI EM

President, MSI

Defenestrator

Active Member

I stand with John Locke.

President, MSI

Active Member

I stand with John Locke.

dont be a dumbass

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

I stand with John Locke.

I stand with John Locke.

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics