Commonwealth v. Caetano

Knuckle Dragger · Jul 7, 2016

777GSOTB said:
If that were the case, wouldn't they have taken Friedman v Highland Park? If they take a civil case on the stun gun issue, scariness of the weapon must be the deciding factor.

I don't know why SCOTUS didn't take Friedman, or any other case for that matter. I think that 'assault weapons' are too much of a hot potatoe for them right now and they may want to see more lower court actions.

A stun gun case in Massachusetts would be good because it can leverage Caetano and probably be successful without going all the way to the Supreme Court. The language in Caetano is easily applicable to an AWB case. Having the statute overturned using Caetano would only provide more weight to an AWB.

777GSOTB · Jul 7, 2016

Knuckle Dragger said:
I don't know why SCOTUS didn't take Friedman, or any other case for that matter. I think that 'assault weapons' are too much of a hot potatoe for them right now and they may want to see more lower court actions.

A stun gun case in Massachusetts would be good because it can leverage Caetano and probably be successful without going all the way to the Supreme Court. The language in Caetano is easily applicable to an AWB case. Having the statute overturned using Caetano would only provide more weight to an AWB.

They should have taken Friedman v Highland Park, as there is no denial of their " in common use " status...More so than any stun gun and that is provable. But, maybe some justices didn't think there was an injury to the right...Friedman wasn't denied his right to self-defense, just what weapon he has access to.

I would hope " hot potatoes " didn't effect their case acceptance standards. But there are other reasons for not taking a case and why I mentioned that if they take a civil stun gun case, as Caetano was arrested, the " hot (scary) potato " doctrine must be the reason.

U.S. Supreme Court
ASHWANDER v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288 (1936)

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS (concurring)

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:

5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. 6 Tyler v. Judges, etc., 179 U. [297 U.S. 288, 348] * S. 405, 21 S.Ct. 206; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 621 , 35 S.Ct. 140. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained. Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Miller, 283 U.S. 96, 99 , 100 S., 51 S.Ct. 392. In Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126 , 42 S.Ct. 274, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen who sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 , 43 S.Ct. 597, the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained although made by the commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens.

wolfwood · Jul 7, 2016

777GSOTB said:
They should have taken Friedman v Highland Park, as there is no denial of their " in common use " status...More so than any stun gun and that is provable. But, maybe some justices didn't think there was an injury to the right...Friedman wasn't denied his right to self-defense, just what weapon he has access to.

I would hope " hot potatoes " didn't effect their case acceptance standards. But there are other reasons for not taking a case and why I mentioned that if they take a civil stun gun case, as Caetano was arrested, the " hot (scary) potato " doctrine must be the reason.

U.S. Supreme Court
ASHWANDER v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288 (1936)

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS (concurring)

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:

5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. 6 Tyler v. Judges, etc., 179 U. [297 U.S. 288, 348] * S. 405, 21 S.Ct. 206; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 621 , 35 S.Ct. 140. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained. Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Miller, 283 U.S. 96, 99 , 100 S., 51 S.Ct. 392. In Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126 , 42 S.Ct. 274, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen who sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 , 43 S.Ct. 597, the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained although made by the commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens.

It i exactly because of the hot potatoe issue that they did not take it.

Knuckle Dragger · Jul 7, 2016

wolfwood said:
It i exactly because of the hot potatoe issue that they did not take it.

Bingo

This court is a little 'gun shy' and the Second Amendment is the new abortion.

Many, including in retrospect Justice O'Conner, feel that Rov v. Wade was decide prematurely. At the time it looked liked abortion was not a particularly divisive issue and that the nation was coalescing around a pro-choice sentiment. Well, we saw what happened there.

Add to that Roberts's restrained judicial philosophy. Roberts does not want the court the be the most important branch of government. He would much prefer to see the legislative and executive branches of government set the agenda with perhaps some input from the lower courts. He is exceedingly deferential and sees his court as a decider of last resort.

For the next couple of decades, the Second Amendment will look a lot like abortion rights have looked for the last forty years. It will largely be accepted and supported by most of the country with outlying opposition in a few locations.

For abortion Texas, Utah, Oklahoma, etc. continue to do what they think they can to make the procedure unavailable. At the same time states like California and New York continue trying to limit the Second Amendment protections affirmed by Heller. This will be come as important a 'litmus test' for judicial nominees as Roe v. Wade every was.

In the public opinion sphere the gun control folks have taken a page from the right-to-life playbook. 'Gun safety' laws have as much to do with gun safety as do Texas laws purporting to protect the safety of women seeking abortions. In both cases the objectives are the same: to burden the right into non-existence.

chilipeppermaniac · Jul 8, 2016

Boxcab said:
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.

Yup, what boxcab said. Of course we know he should turn in his stun gun and call 911 and flee from his attackers.

esqappellate · Jul 8, 2016

wjackcooper said:
Charges dropped in Caetano v. Massachusetts Second Amendment stun gun case - The Washington Post Volokh today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...massachusetts-second-amendment-stun-gun-case/

Regards
Jack

And not just dropped, she was actually acquitted by the trial judge, which is much better. I love happy endings....

press1280 · Jul 8, 2016

esqappellate said:
And not just dropped, she was actually acquitted by the trial judge, which is much better. I love happy endings....

How so when she clearly violated the (unconstitutional) statute?

esqappellate · Jul 8, 2016

press1280 said:
How so when she clearly violated the (unconstitutional) statute?

By a consent order

777GSOTB · Jul 11, 2016

wolfwood said:
It i exactly because of the hot potatoe issue that they did not take it.

You can't say that with absolute certainty...Friedman was not denied his 2nd Amendment right to self-defense by operation of that Highland Park ordinance. Following the " Dicta " argument that so many here have used with me, weapons that Friedman wants to use/own haven't been specifically protected under either Heller or McDonald.

wolfwood · Jul 11, 2016

777GSOTB said:
You can't say that with absolute certainty...Friedman was not denied his 2nd Amendment right to self-defense by operation of that Highland Park ordinance. Following the " Dicta " argument that so many here have used with me, weapons that Friedman wants to use/own haven't been specifically protected under either Heller or McDonald.

Your right but you have to understand these people the Court don't live in our world. The closest thing Supreme Court judges have gotten to military service, gun culture or anything else involing the America you and I live in is on television. Other than Thomas the Supreme Court is comprised of 7 upper middle class lawyers that at best understand our lives from a academic perspective.

Thomas is the last of a dying breed. Now all judges are picked from a extremely narrow range of America. There is no Oliver Wendall Holmes coming back from the war to save us from the gilded class anymore. The court system is comprised of the gilded bourgeois class alone.

So the question to ask yourself is whether a AR-15 is in common use by New York sky rise lawyers. Or otherwise is something they would want to own. If the answer is no then you know how the Supreme Court will act.

press1280 · Jul 11, 2016

wolfwood said:
Your right but you have to understand these people the Court don't live in our world. The closest thing Supreme Court judges have gotten to military service, gun culture or anything else involing the America you and I live in is on television. Other than Thomas the Supreme Court is comprised of 7 upper middle class lawyers that at best understand our lives from a academic perspective.

Thomas is the last of a dying breed. Now all judges are picked from a extremely narrow range of America. There is no Oliver Wendall Holmes coming back from the war to save us from the gilded class anymore. The court system is comprised of the gilded bourgeois class alone.

So the question to ask yourself is whether a AR-15 is in common use by New York sky rise lawyers. Or otherwise is something they would want to own. If the answer is no then you know how the Supreme Court will act.

Quite true (although SCOTUS IMO isn't as bad as the Federal Circuits). That's why I'm thinking it may be beneficial to try cases in elected state courts, where the judges are indeed closer to the people.

delaware_export · Mar 29, 2024

Bumping this. This happened in 2016. Resistance states like Hawaii waiting until ‘22 iirc to actually let retailers sell stunners and such

currently in NYC, they still have a stun ban in place. After 8!!! Years NYC is still Resisting. They are trying to delay to current case saying “we need more time”. it appears theyll get it.

the resistance is SUPER STRONG.

also, in reading this thread, interesting the references to the previous hearing of kolbe. And the prediction that “m16s and the like “ phrasing would play a big part in the case… and the fact that the Herman Munster / Fred Gwynn soundalike kept harping on it in this months post bruen hearing.

press1280 · Mar 30, 2024

delaware_export said:
Bumping this. This happened in 2016. Resistance states like Hawaii waiting until ‘22 iirc to actually let retailers sell stunners and such

currently in NYC, they still have a stun ban in place. After 8!!! Years NYC is still Resisting. They are trying to delay to current case saying “we need more time”. it appears theyll get it.

the resistance is SUPER STRONG.

also, in reading this thread, interesting the references to the previous hearing of kolbe. And the prediction that “m16s and the like “ phrasing would play a big part in the case… and the fact that the Herman Munster / Fred Gwynn soundalike kept harping on it in this months post bruen hearing.

crazy. I thought all the stun gun bans were gone by now.

Allen65 · Mar 30, 2024

press1280 said:
crazy. I thought all the stun gun bans were gone by now.

Most of us saw this coming when Bruen was announced, having seen how lower courts and local jurisdictions have played passive-aggressive in complying with Heller, McDonald, Caetano, et al.. The jurisdictions that passed and maintain these laws won't give them up without a fight, regardless of what happens at SCOTUS in other cases no matter how clearly related. Every single one will need to be challenged individually in court to finally render them moot. And we get to pay both plaintiff and defendent's (via taxes) expenses to do it.

Commonwealth v. Caetano

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Knuckle Dragger

Active Member

777GSOTB

Active Member

wolfwood

Ultimate Member

Knuckle Dragger

Active Member

chilipeppermaniac

Ultimate Member

esqappellate

President, MSI

press1280

Ultimate Member

esqappellate

President, MSI

777GSOTB

Active Member

wolfwood

Ultimate Member

press1280

Ultimate Member

delaware_export

Ultimate Member

press1280

Ultimate Member

Allen65

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page