Decision in Kolbe!

zoostation · Mar 21, 2016

erwos said:
8-0 on stun guns? That's a nice win on a SCOTUS we didn't think was terribly friendly to us now.

I myself don't think they are still, at least four of them. But when you think about it, stun guns are an easy giveaway even for liberals when you want to look "fair" at a critical point in time.

esqappellate · Mar 21, 2016

zoostation said:
Just read it, thanks. Am I overly optimistic or does this ruling also seem to likely throw most local laws against stun guns into the crapper as well?

Yup, sure does.

esqappellate · Mar 21, 2016

Mr H said:
Can't PDF right now...

Romper Room summary, pls?

Holds that stun guns are "bearable" arms and thus protected by the 2d Amendment, as construed in Heller and McDonald.

esqappellate · Mar 21, 2016

zoostation said:
I myself don't think they are still, at least four of them. But when you think about it, stun guns are an easy giveaway even for liberals when you want to look "fair" at a critical point in time.

that's less important than the unanimous reaffirmation of Heller.

Mr H · Mar 21, 2016

esqappellate said:
Holds that stun guns are "bearable" arms and thus protected by the 2d Amendment, as construed in Heller and McDonald.

Great news... Unless, of course, you work for the company I'm with :lol2:

zoostation · Mar 21, 2016

esqappellate said:
that's less important than the unanimous reaffirmation of Heller.

Yes I understand. As a lay observer it just shocks me to see some of the dissenters in Heller sign on so readily to a decision so entirely, and one might even say enthusiastically, rooted in Heller.

Hawkeye · Mar 21, 2016

esqappellate said:
Just hot off the Supreme Court presses: A per curiam 8/0 summary reversal win in Caetano! This will bear on Kolbe.

I just did a quick read.

Sounds really good, especially this bit:

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous
per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26
N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important
limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller,
554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical
tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and
unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded that
stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly
modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at
693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at
the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the
court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is
inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Because it contains some of the Court's thinking on what a "dangerous and unusual" weapon is or isn't, which has direct bearing on Kolbe.

However.... am I reading this wrong, or is this just a grant of certiorari? Though on a second and third reading it looks like the SC just vacated the Massachusetts court's ruling and remanded the case back to them for a second ruling that's not inconsistent with Supreme Court precedence.

whistlersmother · Mar 21, 2016

Given that Heller is the "law of the land", how could the justices NOT rule against MA in this case. If one accepts Heller, then the decisions, IMO, would have to be 8-0.

The key to the leftists will be to invalidate Heller/McDonald at some point.

And yes, stun guns are probably a "no-brainer" to the leftist on the court.

Hawkeye · Mar 21, 2016

erwos said:
8-0 on stun guns? That's a nice win on a SCOTUS we didn't think was terribly friendly to us now.

It's really nice, but I read it as 8-0 on "hey, you lower court, pay attention to our rulings and interpret them correctly." I think they would have gone this direction on anything that was this much in direct contravention to Supreme Court precedence.

However, it's worth noting that the current decision in Kolbe is just as much in contravention to their precedence as this one is...

DC-W · Mar 21, 2016

Hawkeye said:
I just did a quick read. Sounds really good, especially this bit: Because it contains some of the Court's thinking on what a "dangerous and unusual" weapon is or isn't, which has direct bearing on Kolbe. However.... am I reading this wrong, or is this just a grant of certiorari? Though on a second and third reading it looks like the SC just vacated the Massachusetts court's ruling and remanded the case back to them for a second ruling that's not inconsistent with Supreme Court precedence.

You're saying the same thing I saw on the scotusblog Twitter feed this morning.

esqappellate · Mar 21, 2016

zoostation said:
Yes I understand. As a lay observer it just shocks me to see some of the dissenters in Heller sign on so readily to a decision so entirely, and one might even say enthusiastically, rooted in Heller.

Oh, it wasn't enthusiastically. As Alito says in his concurrence, it was "grudgingly." (slip op. at 10). But, that's ok.

esqappellate · Mar 21, 2016

Hawkeye said:
I just did a quick read.

Sounds really good, especially this bit:

Because it contains some of the Court's thinking on what a "dangerous and unusual" weapon is or isn't, which has direct bearing on Kolbe.

However.... am I reading this wrong, or is this just a grant of certiorari? Though on a second and third reading it looks like the SC just vacated the Massachusetts court's ruling and remanded the case back to them for a second ruling that's not inconsistent with Supreme Court precedence.

Correct, it is a summary reversal.

Mike · Mar 21, 2016

zoostation said:
I myself don't think they are still, at least four of them. But when you think about it, stun guns are an easy giveaway even for liberals when you want to look "fair" at a critical point in time.

esqappellate said:
that's less important than the unanimous reaffirmation of Heller.

zoostation said:
Yes I understand. As a lay observer it just shocks me to see some of the dissenters in Heller sign on so readily to a decision so entirely, and one might even say enthusiastically, rooted in Heller.

whistlersmother said:
Given that Heller is the "law of the land", how could the justices NOT rule against MA in this case. If one accepts Heller, then the decisions, IMO, would have to be 8-0.

The key to the leftists will be to invalidate Heller/McDonald at some point.

And yes, stun guns are probably a "no-brainer" to the leftist on the court.

Therefore even if the supremes want to vote anti 2A, they now reaffirmed Heller and McDonald for us... :party29:

Matlack · Mar 21, 2016

By equating “unusual” with “in common use at
the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,”

This is the biggest problem with the decision. They are still considering the 2A to apply to arms from 1700's. IE they can consider modern firearms as unusual.

BeoBill · Mar 21, 2016

I suspect this will have an effect on our En Banc Panel. What and how big the effect will be I can't say at all. Here's hoping...

Redcobra · Mar 21, 2016

So this means I can buy and have a Stun Gun in my car in Baltimore County and City?

csanc123 · Mar 21, 2016

Matlack said:
This is the biggest problem with the decision. They are still considering the 2A to apply to arms from 1700's. IE they can consider modern firearms as unusual.

Not what the decision says.

"In so doing, the court (Referring to Massachusetts) concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason."

morpate · Mar 21, 2016

Matlack said:
This is the biggest problem with the decision. They are still considering the 2A to apply to arms from 1700's. IE they can consider modern firearms as unusual.

It's not clear from your post whether "the decision" was the Mass Supreme Court decision or today's SCOTUS per curium, but to be clear, SCOTUS outright rejected that argument. Things not around in 1789 are not automatically unusual.

morpate · Mar 21, 2016

Redcobra said:
So this means I can buy and have a Stun Gun in my car in Baltimore County and City?

No, it means that the Mass Supreme Court must reconsider its decision in the wake of the clarification provided by SCOTUS, and that a strike-down of Mass's ban is likely. For a local or state ban in MD to fall, either legislative action removing it has to happen, or a lawsuit challenging it has to be filed, argued, and won. Winning a lawsuit is now substantially easier given today's SCOTUS opinion.

Matlack · Mar 21, 2016

csanc123 said:
Not what the decision says.

"In so doing, the court (Referring to Massachusetts) concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason."

My bad. That was Massachusetts original ruling. Not the SCOTUS.

Decision in Kolbe!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

, ,

President, MSI

President, MSI

President, MSI

Banana'd

, ,

The Leatherstocking

Peace through strength

The Leatherstocking

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

President, MSI

Propietario de casa, Toluca, México

Scribe

Crank in the Third Row

Senior Shooter

Ultimate Member

Member

Member

Scribe

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics