U.S. Supreme Court - March 21, 2016

by: Aalvarez • March 24, 2016 • no comments

In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court rules that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was incorrect in its reasoning for why the state was constitutionally allowed to ban personal possession or use of a “stun gun” without violating the Second Amendment. First, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court could not justify the ban on the ground that stun guns were not common at the time the Second Amendment was enacted, because Heller clearly states that the Second Amendment extends to weapons that were not in existence at the time the Second Amendment was founded. Second, the Massachusetts Supreme Court could not justify the ban on the grounds that stun guns are “dangerous per se” and “unusual,” because in doing so, the court concluded that stun guns are unusual because they are a modern invention. That conclusion fails for the same reason as the first: Because the Second Amendment extends to arms not in existence at the time of its passing. Lastly, the court incorrectly reasoned that the ban could be upheld on the grounds that stun guns are not adaptable to military use. Again, this line of reasoning is inconsistent with Heller, which rejected the idea that the Second Amendment only protects weapons useful in warfare.

In a lengthy concurring opinion, Justices Alito and Thomas express deep sympathy for the defendant, a woman who possessed the stun gun to protect herself and her children from her abusive ex-boyfriend. The concurring opinion ends boldly, stating: "If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe." Judgment vacated and remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)