Homeless Woman's Stun Gun Spurs 2nd Amendment Case

ABC News ^ | 11/28/2014 | DENISE LAVOIE

[Mean Daddy]

Jaime Caetano was beaten so badly by her ex-boyfriend that she ended up in the hospital. So when a friend offered her a stun gun to protect herself, she took it.

Caetano, who is homeless, never had to use it but now finds herself at the center of a contentious Second Amendment case headed to the highest court in Massachusetts.

The Supreme Judicial Court is being asked to decide whether a state law that prohibits private citizens from possessing stun guns infringes on their right to keep and bear arms. In an unusual twist, the court is also being asked to examine whether the Second Amendment right to defend yourself in your own home applies in the case of a homeless person.

[Mean Daddy]

Sometimes it takes horrendous examples such as this to affect change.

[TigersEye]

Does the Mass court really want to say that a woman has no right to defend herself unless she owns property? If any court would...

[Sirius Lee]

the court is also being asked to examine whether the Second Amendment right to defend yourself in your own home

I can't seem to find the "keep and bear arms only in your own home" clause.

[WayneS]

Anyone with a functioning brain KNOWS the ban infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.

That is why I am virtually certain that the Masshole Supreme Court will rule that it does not.

[grobdriver]

I can't seem to find the "keep and bear arms only in your own home" clause.

It's right there behind the one that says a citizen may only own weapons that are "commonly" used by "militias".

[MileHi]

My home is where I lay my hat.

[BIV]

The “only in your house” clause is four lines down and 18 degrees west from the third penumbra on the left.

[PAR35]

Massachusetts laws against self defense — just another chapter in the demoncrats war on women.

[TigersEye]

My home is where I lay out my attacker by whatever means I have at hand. ;^)

[rey]

Yes, she is a shop lifter and homeless; unsavory, perhaps, but horrendous?

Most of our fourth amendment protections and clarifications thereof come from criminal cases. Yes, this is unfortunate, but there is not a legal court for trying theoretical cases.

[Blood of Tyrants]

It should be an open and shut case. Your 2A rights are not bound by the walls of your home.

[skr]

Home is where the heart is (for those who don’t have hats)

[gaijin]

I reallly want the libs to say “ONLY RICH people.can defend themselves”.

Oh man, that would be JUICY...!!

[Blood of Tyrants]

Papa was a rolling stone,
Wherever he laid his hat was his home...

[muir_redwoods]

True that, and I have many hats

[GeronL]

the second amendment does not just apply to homes

[Steamburg]

A fine point. Where’s the ACLU and Amnesty?

[kingu]

It's right there behind the one that says a citizen may only own weapons that are "commonly" used by "militias".

Oh good, then then proscriptions against automatic weapons, sexy black weapons, and hand grenades goes out the window too?

[MileHi]

{:0)

[MileHi]

Yup