Commonwealth v. Caetano

press1280 · Mar 21, 2016

PER CURIAM REVERSAL!

Campfire · Mar 21, 2016

Wow. Link?

frogman68 · Mar 21, 2016

mind you a 8-0 ruling!!!!!!!!
no link yet just saw it flash by on the news ticker

danb · Mar 21, 2016

holy chit!!!

opinion attached. (starts p 15)

:bannana:

The whole PC reversal is two pages. The MA court just got spanked. :spank:

esqappellate · Mar 21, 2016

danb said:
holy chit!!!

opinion attached. (starts p 15)

This is big. A key holding in Heller reaffirmed unanimously. I am delighted, not mention gratified that my sense of what the Court was doing is confirmed.

Kharn · Mar 21, 2016

But I wanted a Ginsburg concurrence...

Knuckle Dragger · Mar 21, 2016

I saw the per curium decision while at the gym. The same gym where I regularly run into one of the SJC justices. I so wish I'd seen her this morning!

If there's one thing that the justice can agree on it's that they don't abide getting the middle finger from a lower court. That alone is enough for them to issue a per curium decision.

csanc123 · Mar 21, 2016

Does this do away with city/local laws that prohibit stun guns? Also, given that many other states have total prohibitions, does this ruling invalidate those laws a well?

esqappellate · Mar 21, 2016

csanc123 said:
Does this do away with city/local laws that prohibit stun guns? Also, given that many other states have total prohibitions, does this ruling invalidate those laws a well?

Should. The holding is that a categorical ban on stun guns runs afoul of the Second Amendment, as construed in Heller.

esqappellate · Mar 21, 2016

Knuckle Dragger said:
I saw the per curium decision while at the gym. The same gym where I regularly run into one of the SJC justices. I so wish I'd seen her this morning!

If there's one thing that the justice can agree on it's that they don't abide getting the middle finger from a lower court. That alone is enough for them to issue a per curium decision.

I agree. Every member of the Court has a stake in having its majority decisions, even the 5/4 decisions, respected by the lower courts. The Mass court's decision in Caetano was so far off the wall that the Court couldn't let it pass.

fightinbluhen51 · Mar 21, 2016

esqappellate said:
I agree. Every member of the Court has a stake in having its majority decisions, even the 5/4 decisions, respected by the lower courts. The Mass court's decision in Caetano was so far off the wall that the Court couldn't let it pass.

Well, it's about damned time.

csanc123 · Mar 21, 2016

I hate ABCNEWS. Now I'm confused. This is what they wrote:

"Monday's unsigned opinion does not go so far as to strike down the law or say stun guns are a type of firearm that is protected under the amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." (WTF) But the opinion said the Massachusetts court's reasoning for upholding the law was faulty"

Are they misinterpreting the ruling? How could they say "the ruling DOES NOT stipulate that stun guns are protected under 2A"?

Campfire · Mar 21, 2016

csanc123 said:
I hate ABCNEWS. Now I'm confused. This is what they wrote:

"Monday's unsigned opinion does not go so far as to strike down the law or say stun guns are a type of firearm that is protected under the amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." (WTF) But the opinion said the Massachusetts court's reasoning for upholding the law was faulty"

Are they misinterpreting the ruling? How could they say "the ruling DOES NOT stipulate that stun guns are protected under 2A"?

(Grin) When you read Heller and McDonald do you think that you have a right to bear arms (outside the home)?

Campfire · Mar 21, 2016

esqappellate said:
Should. The holding is that a categorical ban on stun guns runs afoul of the Second Amendment, as construed in Heller.

I think she was carrying it concealed in public at the time, too. :-).

DC-W · Mar 21, 2016

Reason has good cliff notes here:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/21/supreme-court-vacates-massachusetts-ruli

ddestruel · Mar 21, 2016

Scalia got his one last crack at the game of influence clearing some of the mess up before his passing

I think the unanimous decision on this will reverberate in various cases

in such a short per curiam they sure were pretty well to the point about the courts being out of line.

"This court held that" The second amendment extended, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those not in existence at the time of the founding." "and that this 2nd amendment right is fully applicable to the states"

- i read that opening statement as the supreme court saying quit messing around

But then Alito and Thomas follow up with their concurrence pg 6
"that test maybe appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon . But it can not be used to identify arms that fall outside the 2nd amendment""the relevant dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes"

So am i reading this correct they just blew a hole in the 2 step intermediate process that the courts have been using. basically saying criminal actions are subject to balancing tests but the law abiding or lawful purposes are beyond that balancing test?

Mike · Mar 21, 2016

csanc123 said:
Does this do away with city/local laws that prohibit stun guns? Also, given that many other states have total prohibitions, does this ruling invalidate those laws a well?

esqappellate said:
Should. The holding is that a categorical ban on stun guns runs afoul of the Second Amendment, as construed in Heller.

esqappellate said:
I agree. Every member of the Court has a stake in having its majority decisions, even the 5/4 decisions, respected by the lower courts. The Mass court's decision in Caetano was so far off the wall that the Court couldn't let it pass.

DC-W said:
Reason has good cliff notes here:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/21/supreme-court-vacates-massachusetts-ruli

I like the quote at the end of that:

"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," Alito wrote. "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." According to Alito, "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 people than about keeping them safe."

Now, if they will also acknowledge that citizens must also be able to protect themselves from tyranny by the [any] government, we might all feel safer from said tyranny. I'm thinking this does not bode well for OMao's SB281 AKA FSA2013

Campfire · Mar 21, 2016

ddestruel said:
ALITO got his one last crack at the game of clearing some of the mess up before his passing

I think the unanimous decision on this will reverberate in various cases

in such a short per curiam they sure were pretty well to the point about the courts being out of line.

"This court held that" The second amendment extended, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those not in existence at the time of the founding." "and that this 2nd amendment right is fully applicable to the states"

- i read that opening statement as the supreme court saying quit messing around

But then Alito and Thomas follow up with their concurrence pg 6

"that test maybe appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon . But it can not be used to identify arms that fall outside the 2nd amendment""the relevant dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes"

So am i reading this correct they just blew a hole in the 2 step intermediate process that the courts have been using. basically saying criminal actions are subject to balancing tests but the law abiding or lawful purposes are beyond that balancing test?

I just read the concurrence. Wow, talk about clearing things up.

To what extent can the concurrence be used in other cases to support arguments? Does it carry the same weight as any other published SCOTUS opinion?

press1280 · Mar 21, 2016

Campfire said:
I just read the concurrence. Wow, talk about clearing things up.

To what extent can the concurrence be used in other cases to support arguments? Does it carry the same weight as any other published SCOTUS opinion?

Good question. The opinion would seemingly be very useful for the Kobe oral arguments, but at the same time SCOTUS had a chance to knock down Friedman and didn't do it.

Peaceful John · Mar 21, 2016

I don't wish to seem unappreciative. This is certainly good for stun guns and Ms. Caetano, but how does it affect (a) "bear" outside the home and (b) if a permanent residential address is required to buy a gun on the primary market?

Commonwealth v. Caetano

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Member

товарищ плачевная

dont be a dumbass

Attachments

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

President, MSI

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Ultimate Member

Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Propietario de casa, Toluca, México

Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics