Posted on 03/22/2016 7:20:23 AM PDT by massmike
The Supreme Court has zapped a decision by the Bay State’s highest court that found the Second Amendment does not apply to stun guns.
The nation’s highest court ruled that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s reasoning for allowing a ban of stun guns ran afoul of a 2008 decision by the late Justice Antonin Scalia that guaranteed an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes.
The SJC will have to hear the case again, which will give Jaime Caetano — a woman who was caught with a stun gun in her purse — a chance to erase her conviction.
“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,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote, concurring in the decision. “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.”
Attorney General Maura Healey’s office, which was responsible for defending the state’s position, did not respond to requests for comment.
Terence Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights, a public interest law firm that filed an amicus brief in the case, said, “We are pleased that the Supreme Court ruled that citizens have a constitutionally protected right to utilize stun guns and other non-lethal weapons as a legitimate means of self-protection. It is plainly unconstitutional to force individuals to choose between lethal weapons or no self-protection.”
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
Not really a SCOTUS ruling, but more of a dope slap to the Mass Court and remanding the case for reconsideration.
Will this apply to Phasers, as well?
Got to plan for the future.
Itza good start!
True not really a ruling, but it WAS an 8-0 vote.
Phasers will have DNA/Biometric scanning capability so only the lawful registered owner can fire the weapon. Civilian models will only cone with stun mode but police and military weapons will have kill mode to protect them from savage dogs that may confront them when they are unlawfully entering your property.
It sure looks like a SCOTUS ruling to me.
Confirms Heller means what it says about all bearable arms that are in common use being protected by the Second Amendment; unanimous, no dissents.
Well, it is communist Massachusetts, after all.
The fact that it was issued PER CURIAM is an emphatic slap at those who make the argument that the Second Amendment only applies to arms in use at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights; that the 2A does not apply to firearms owned in the millions in the U.S., that “dangerous” weapons means that regulators can ignore the 2A for any item that they deem “dangerous”, by fiat.
All these arguments have been put forward by lower courts and legislators to show that they do not need to abide by Heller.
It is now confirmed that these arguments are false.
This woman should sue the commonwealth for all the time and money she wasted on this political witch-hunt
Many thanks, y’all for the post!
Pingout!
See #10
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3412240/posts?page=10#10
It has been sent back to state supreme court for another ruling. It was not a ruling by SCOTUS. Basically, SCOTUS said "try again."
A few years ago a MA woman driver who felt threatened by an aggressive truck driver flashed her holstered pistol and he backed off. He then called the police and told them she had threatened him. She was subsequently destroyed legally, thrown out of work, vilified by The Boston Globe, and finally committed suicide.
LOL. The judgment below was vacated. Remanding for further proceedings does not mean that SCOTUS did not issue a ruling, it only means that it sent the case back with instructions as to the rule of law to be applied. A similar judgment was entered in US v. Miller (the firearms case), and many others.
The Miller decision was remanded for another ruling, yet was held as “The” difinitive Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment for decades.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
The judgment in No. 91-744 is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion, including consideration of the question of severability.
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
Under the present state of the law, however, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be vacated. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
The judgment of the Tenth Circuit in No. 13-354 is affirmed; the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 13-356 is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Who was that? Never heard of this case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.