Gun Watch – by Dean Weingarten
In a historic, but extremely short unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment applies “to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,”. As this is an enormous class of nearly all weapons, the decision is properly applied to knives and clubs, and nearly all firearms that have been sold in the United States. Nearly all types of firearms are more common than stun guns. From nbcnews.com:
But in an unsigned opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday vacated that ruling. It said the Massachusetts court improperly found that Second Amendment protection applies only to weapons that were in common use at the time of the nation’s founding.
Referring to its landmark 2008 ruling on handguns in the home, the justices said the Second Amendment applies “to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” even those not in existence at the time of the founding.
The unsigned opinion is very short. It is sparse, as noted by justices Thomas and Alito. Alito writes a much longer and more forceful opinion in concurrence. It could, and should, have gone much further. None the less, it is an enormous win for Second Amendment supporters, and it extends far beyond stun guns and Massachusetts. Because the opinion is short, here is the unanimous opinion, without Justice Alito’s concurrence, which is at the link.
14-10078 Caetano v. Massachusetts(pdf) :
Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016)
1
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
No. 14–10078.Decided March 21, 2016
PER CURIAM.
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).
The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.
The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.
Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.
For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
There is strong language in this opinion. If 200,000 stun guns in the U.S. are “common”, it is hard to believe that 5 million AR-15s and millions of other semi-automatic rifles are “unusual”. If stun guns are common and protected by the Second Amendment, then so are knives, clubs, and future weaponry.
The case lays to rest the idea that courts can simply say anything other than handguns are “uncommon” or “unusual” and are therefore exempt from Second Amendment protections.
This case will be cited far into the future.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2016/03/supreme-court-rules-that-second.html
As someone told me as their viewpoint on all this:
{“I do what I do.
By the time that they come for the legal stuff I have since they managed to make it illegal, the Illegal stuff that I already have is just more illegal stuff. So it really don’t matter what the law tacks on as limitations to the 2nd, by the time they create a law that makes me a criminal for now legal stuff…
I will just be more of a criminal then they expect.” }
Makes kinda sense, doesn’t it.
Justice Samuel Alito said the underlying decision both defied Heller and “does a grave disservice to vulnerable individuals like Caetano who must defend themselves because the state will not.”
Suggesting “that Caetano could have simply gotten a firearm to defend herself” unnerved Alito in particular.
“A weapon is an effective means of self-defense only if one is prepared to use it, and it is presumptuous to tell Caetano she should have been ready to shoot the father of her two young children if she wanted to protect herself,” the opinion states. “Courts should not be in the business of demanding that citizens use more force for self-defense than they are comfortable wielding.”
“Countless people may have reservations about using deadly force, whether for moral, religious, or emotional reasons – or simply out of fear of killing the wrong person,” the ruling continues. “I am not prepared to say that a state may force an individual to choose between exercising that right and following her conscience, at least where both can be accommodated by a weapon already in widespread use across the nation.”
Alito also called it doubly tragic that her conviction would keep her from bearing arms for self-defense after her ownership of a nonlethal weapon “may well have saved her life” when the state failed her.
“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,” the opinion concludes.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/03/21/massachusetts-stun-gun-prosecution-condemned.htm
Great!….
Now I guess I have run them over with my car.
I figure they’ll have to outlaw vehicles now.
Did you know you get less time in prison running someone over for vehicle manslaughter then using a firearm?
Well that’s if you don’t keep putting it in reverse and drive a few times over them to ensure you got the job done.
Gotta getem on the first meatplow.
WHEN I WAS WORKING AS A GUNSMITH, MY TEENAGE SON ONCE ASKED, DAD, HOW WILL THEY GET ALL THE GUNS?” I SAID, “WHY SON, THE STATE WILL MAKE ALL OF US FELONS.”…. HE STILL BRINGS THAT UP TO ME AND WE JOKE ABOUT IT.
“If stun guns are common and protected by the Second Amendment, then so are knives, clubs, and future weaponry.”
Up to and including nukes.
PERIOD!