The Supreme Court Just Smacked Down A Terrible Anti-Gun Ruling

Federalist, the ^ | 22 March 2016

[Lorianne]

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated a ruling that criminalized stun guns by excluding them from Second Amendment protections.

In 2011, a Massachusetts woman, Jaime Caetano, was arrested for carrying a stun gun in her purse to protect herself from her abusive ex-boyfriend. A judge at the time ruled that Caetano’s decision to carry a stun gun was illegal because the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to the types of weapons commonly used at the time the amendment was ratified.

Last year, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld Caetano’s criminal conviction, saying that a stun gun “is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection.”

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s ruling and ordered the Massachusetts court to rehear the case. No members of the Court dissented from the opinion ordering the state court to rehear the case. In a separate opinion, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas slammed the Massachusetts court for being “more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.”

[jessduntno]

“A judge at the time ruled that Caetano’s decision to carry a stun gun was illegal because the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to the types of weapons commonly used at the time the amendment was ratified.”

Hmmmmph.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I don’t see where it says that...true, it may not be considered “arms” I guess, but they probably didn’t have a .38 Chief’s Special with shoulder holster then, did they?

[mabelkitty]

I like keeping the Court ham-strung with 8 on the bench. They aren’t going to do anything to mobilize conservative voters.
So much for the Constitutional crisis, no?

[shibumi]

This case is of added significance because it shows that the normal business of the Court is not being impeded by the absence of a ninth Justice.

[Inyo-Mono]

A judge at the time ruled that Caetano’s decision to carry a stun gun was illegal because the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to the types of weapons commonly used at the time the amendment was ratified.

So under this reasoning, I can carry a loaded flintlock pistol with me anywhere?

[MileHi]

A judge at the time ruled that Caetano’s decision to carry a stun gun was illegal because the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to the types of weapons commonly used at the time the amendment was ratified.

The judge is a dunce who should be recalled.

[Lazamataz]

And the fact is it was a UNANIMOUS SCOTUS ruling. With liberals voting like that, this is a little amazing.

[TigersEye]

“A judge at the time ruled that Caetano’s decision to carry a stun gun was illegal because the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to the types of weapons commonly used at the time the amendment was ratified.”

Then it should be no problem to carry sabers and swords in Taxachussets.

[ctdonath2]

Very interesting ruling. Looking forward to reading it.

Next question: if a stun gun is covered, then how about a short barreled rifle? machine gun? You know, weapons that militia grunts actually use?

[SandRat]

"Caetano’s decision to carry a stun gun was illegal because the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to the types of weapons commonly used at the time the amendment was ratified. "

That is a STUPID statement. We don't have muzzle loaders any more.

[aces]

how about tar and feathers?

[T. P. Pole]

If the original claim is true, what would that do for the first amendment? Only types of speech that were used at the time are allowed? Or only churches that existed then?

[GreenHornet]

A judge at the time ruled that Caetano’s decision to carry a stun gun was illegal because the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to the types of weapons commonly used at the time the amendment was ratified.

Using that logic, the first amendment should not apply to radio, TV , movies, telephones, or the internet because none of those things existed at the time the amendment was ratified.

[litehaus]

but they probably didn’t have a .38 Chief’s Special with shoulder holster —— then——, did they?

THEN....no radio, no tv, no natl newpapers, no, ah nevermind..These judges are a bunch of anus’....

[skimbell]

More importantly, in the opinion, the SC reaffirmed both Heller and McDonald.

That's Yuge! Nobody was talking about either case and the SC just rared back and threw that out there.

Who'd a thought?

[TigersEye]

I don’t think anyone has ever carried hot tar and bags of
feathers around as an armament.

But bullwhips, brass knuckles and billy clubs have been.

[iontheball]

The unrelenting anti-gun bastards keep attacking the Second Amendment at every turn. After all these years, the courts need to start holding them in contempt for refusing to stop this mindless assault. The law is clear. If conventional arms are protected weapons, why would not a lower continuum of force weapon also be protected under the Second Amendment? They and their lawyers know the answer but continue to abuse the legal system by their contemptuous litigious behavior.

[Talisker]

What happened to negative rights?

The 2A doesn’t GRANT protections, it ACKNOWLEDGES certain protections.

If the weapon isn’t acknowledged by the 2nd, it’s not automatically forbidden.

[Sasparilla]

..So under this reasoning, I can carry a loaded flintlock pistol with me anywhere...

Some states like Michigan consider any gun made before 1898 as an antique and not a firearm. At least it was that way 5 years ago when I was there. An old black powder cap and ball 6 shooter could be carried concealed without a permit.

[Billthedrill]

Who'd a thought?

The DC government basically told the Supreme Court to sod off with regard to Heller, and I've often wondered just how well that was taken by even the Justices who voted against it. Disagreeing with someone isn't a capital crime in DC, but taking away their power is.