Commonwealth v. Caetano

[Patrick]

Just remember that however it comes, if we "win big" in the end many of these precedents fall flat like dominoes. It would require a lot of work, but that's why Gura called Heller "The Gun Rights Lawyer Lifetime Employment Act", or something like that.

 

[Dogabutila]

I see this as an easy GVR at appeals. Or we could just go SCOTUS and have them decide that you don't need a permit. Applies outside the home especially if you don't have one. I'd be okay with that too.

 

[Kharn]

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.

With how many extensions have been granted, I'm not sure that case will ever get to the cert conference.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I'm not sure how this became a Jackson thread, but time to get back on-topic.

Jaime Caetano has petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari review.

Caetano v. Massachusetts
I have a copy of the petition and will post a link once I have a chance to upload it.

 

[danb]

I'm not sure how this became a Jackson thread, but time to get back on-topic.

Jaime Caetano has petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari review.

Caetano v. Massachusetts

I have a copy of the petition and will post a link once I have a chance to upload it.

link is not working.

 

[zoostation]

I just can't believe how many liberal protesters were outraged and demonstrating over a court basically saying a homeless man has no real right to self-defense.

Yes, I'm joking. He'd have been better off getting caught selling a few pounds of cocaine. At least then he'd have a chance at a presidential pardon.

 

[Kharn]

This one should work:
14-10078

Being on the prisoner docket doesn't bode well, but MA waived their right to respond and the SC requested they respond anyway, which is a positive sign.

MA's response is due August 12th.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

link is not working.

Fixed

Caetano

BTW, Caetano is a woman

 

[wolfwood]

I have a copy of the petition and will post a link once I have a chance to upload it.

I'd appreciate getting a chance to read their writ. I have a appeal up to the Ninth challenging Hawaii's ban on electric guns. For all I know I may need to borrow some of their arguments at some point.

 

[press1280]

I'd appreciate getting a chance to read their writ. I have a appeal up to the Ninth challenging Hawaii's ban on electric guns. For all I know I may need to borrow some of their arguments at some point.

Pretty interesting. The Mass court screwed up royally IMO by saying stun guns aren't covered because they weren't around in 1791. Goes contrary to Heller since modern handguns also weren't around in 1791.

 

[wolfwood]

It goes against Heller's explicit holding. In Heller the Court ruled the "Second Amendment extends prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of founding." Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2817.

 

[TheBert]

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.

+1

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Caetano petition for certiorari.

 

[esqappellate]

Caetano petition for certiorari.

Thanks. This is worth following with interest.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

As vacuous as the public safety argument against guns is, it is risible when applied to none-lethal defensive weapons.

 

[Inigoes]

As vacuous as the public safety argument against guns is, it is risible when applied to none-lethal defensive weapons.

There is always a possibility of a fatal outcome due to an unforeseen circumstance, when a less than lethal method is employed.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

There is always a possibility of a fatal outcome due to an unforeseen circumstance, when a less than lethal method is employed.

True enough, but the danger threshold is astronomically lower with a device designed to be less than lethal vs. an inherently lethal device.

My point is that if the inherenty lethal device falls under protection (per Heller cannot be banned) then a ban on less than lethal defensive device is constitutionally indefensible based on a public safety interest.

 

[Kharn]

Talk about a long-winded question presented and paragraph headings, but otherwise it seemed decent.

 

[wolfwood]

Talk about a long-winded question presented and paragraph headings, but otherwise it seemed decent.

Remember that this is being done by the local Public Defenders office. The guy is not exactly getting paid 1350 an hour like Paul Clement.
What I'd like to know is when did the Boston PD's office decide it is time to learn several new bodies of law, burn the midnight oil and take this ladies case to the Supreme Court. This is a lot more gumption than I'd typically expect. I'm assuming the public defender in charge of this case happens to be a die hard proponent of the Second Amendment and decided to draw a line in the sand.

 

[Blacksmith101]

So in Massachusetts Freedom of Speech stops with the town crier, Freedom of the Press only exists for the hand operated letterpress, and Freedom of Religion is only for religions founded before 1789. The PD might be interested in some amendments besides the second.