Comm2A has filed an amicus in a stun gun possession criminal case at the SJC

[Knuckle Dragger]

Commonwealth's Brief in Opposition to certiorari

 

[Len-2A Training]

Commonwealth's Brief in Opposition to certiorari

WOW! The Commonwealth (AG) speaks out of both sides of her *******!

• Claims that ONLY those types of guns in common use when the 2nd Amendment was ratified are covered under the Constitution. Claims that SBS and M-16s weren't covered, because they didn't exist back then and are very different from the arms that were in existence then.
• No problem - I guess that the 1st A only covers speaking and writing newspapers, since TV, radio, Internet, etc. didn't exist when the 1st A was ratified!
• Claims that bullets "leave a mark" but stun guns don't. No expert here but I've been led to believe that they leave burn marks on the skin (device in question was a contact device).
• If one uses their "logic" I don't see how semi-auto anything can be covered under their interpretation of the 2nd A as none existed back when the 2nd A was ratified.

Indeed, accounts of people tragically tortured and killed by stun guns and other portable electrical weapons are all too common, particularly given the small numbers of stun guns in circulation.

Really???

Stun guns are also unusual. Viewed from the perspective of the common law or of ratification-era America, stun guns were not just uncommon—they were nonexistent.

?? Again so are computers, TV and radio!!

 

[92G]

Stun guns are also unusual. Viewed from the perspective of the common law or of ratification-era America, stun guns were not just uncommon—they were nonexistent.


Suppose we also surrender defibrillators, lipitor, coronary bypass and stents.
damn i guess we are headed back to the paleolithic era....which i welcome anyway since I'm already on a paleolithic diet.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

That was quite a read of some amazing twisted up pretzel logic. I hope they take this case up.

 

[jasons]

Heller rejected the notion that "only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment," but it also made clear that the "sorts of weapons protected" by the Second Amendment are those that were '"in common use at the time'" of ratification.

Do you even Heller bro?

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), 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.

 

[browncoat]

Do you even Heller bro?

liberal judges hate Heller, and will indubitably attempt to overturn it if they can and ignore it until they do.

 

[jasons]

liberal judges hate Heller, and will indubitably attempt to overturn it if they can and ignore it until they do.

Yeah I know. Just find it amusing that he cites Heller and then argues the exact opposite of it.

 

[pastera]

From the State's Brief

First, the petitioner cannot obtain relief from her conviction unless this Court addresses a further question concerning the extent to which the Second Amendment protects the right to carry arms outside the home.

Does this open up the question if granted Cert?

Then to state

But the particular facts of this case—involving a homeless person living in a hotel—are ill-suited for crafting a general rule on that issue.

is a slap in the face for equal protection

Nor does such a weapon have any conceivable '"relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'"
Heller, 554 U.S. at 622 (quoting Miller, 307 U.S. at 178).

The US Army begs to differ:
http://www.army.mil/article/121659/One_painful_lesson__MPs_train_with_tasers/

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Caetano filed her reply brief yesterday. Short, to the point and brutal. This is a highly recommended read.

Petitioner's Reply Brief

 

[RImike]

Caetano filed her reply brief yesterday. Short, to the point and brutal. This is a highly recommended read.

Petitioner's Reply Brief

Alex, I will take for 200 that the state will employ emotional responses next.....

 

[bigblue]

Tasers are cruel and unusual punishment, you didn't know that?

 

[jar]

Caetano filed her reply brief yesterday. Short, to the point and brutal. This is a highly recommended read.

Petitioner's Reply Brief

Seconded. I'll be adding ipse dixit to my vocabulary.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Think happy thoughts today. Caetano (and Freidman) or on today's conference. We might know as early as Monday if Caetano's case will be reviewed.

 

[MachineHead]

Call me dense, but does this Caetano case bring up the 2A as a right outside the home along with the obvious case of the stun gun?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Call me dense, but does this Caetano case bring up the 2A as a right outside the home along with the obvious case of the stun gun?

That was the case for the SJC review, however, the scope of what SCOTUS has been asked to review is much narrower. The question presented in the petition are:

1. Is a stun gun an “arm” within the meaning of the Second Amendment
2. Does Massachusetts’ blanket prohibition on the possession of stun guns infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments?

If the Supreme Court grants cert, it may be for only one question or they may substitute their own wording of the question(s).

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Caetano was not on today's order list. That probably means it will be relisted or cert has been denied and one or more justices is working on a dissent.

At a minimum it means that this petition has gotten the (well deserved) attention of at least one of the nine.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

This has been relisted several times and is currently on the agenda for Friday's conference.

But, yesterday, the court made a records request:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-10078.htm

Dec 8 2015 Record Requested.

Someone is probably interested in this case......

 

[jasons]

Someone is probably interested in this case......

Well that's encouraging.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Think Happy Thoughts. This case is on tomorrow's conference agenda at the Supreme Court.

 

[bigblue]

Happy happy thoughts: joy joy!!

 

[92G]

would be most awesome if SCOTUS took the case. will keep fingers crossed.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Caetano was not on today's Orders List. We're probably looking at yet another re-list, which probably only increases the odds that cert will be granted.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Relisted for Jan 15th: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-10078.htm

This is the 6th relist! Either this case is granted cert or it's going to have a pretty serious dissent.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Relisted for Jan 15th: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-10078.htm

This is the 6th relist! Either this case is granted cert or it's going to have a pretty serious dissent.

If it did have a serious dissent does that mean it's essentially game over for the case?

 

[terraformer]

If it did have a serious dissent does that mean it's essentially game over for the case?

Yes. I am worried this is a dissent at this point. Though they grabbed the record which is usually not needed in a dissent. But on balance, it's not looking good at this point.

ETA: And if SCOTUS rejects this case, all of the lower courts will be emboldened to act like real *******s. Right now, they are just sort of acting on the margins of the *******.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

New orders list today, but no mention of Caetano. No grant, no denial, no dissent. This is really perplexing.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

New orders list today, but no mention of Caetano. No grant, no denial, no dissent. Relisted for Friday. This is really perplexing.

 

[jar]

Unfortunately, I think it's most likely that terraformer is right.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Is it possible that someone on the court is working on the dissent and that the case just keeps hanging on by a thread? If not, then maybe there is a compelling reason to take it on? Lastly, is it possible they could point to the Heller decision and say to Massachusetts, redo the case but based on the standard set forth in this decision? In other words, the supreme court doesn't actually take it but instructs MA to reconsider it?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Is it possible that someone on the court is working on the dissent and that the case just keeps hanging on by a thread? If not, then maybe there is a compelling reason to take it on? Lastly, is it possible they could point to the Heller decision and say to Massachusetts, redo the case but based on the standard set forth in this decision? In other words, the supreme court doesn't actually take it but instructs MA to reconsider it?

Two good questions. We've seen two 2A cases this terms relisted several time only to have cert declined with Justices Scalia and Thomas issuing a dissent of the denial decision. Much of the 'common wisdom' thinks that this is what's happening with this case - it gets relisted so that the dissenting justices have an opportunity to write their dissent. Sadly, that's a very strong possibility.

Your second question would be a 'GVR':
G: means grant of certiorari. Which means that they took the case.
V: Vacate. Means the lower court case is vacated, as if it didn't exist anymore.
R: remand, meaning the lower court is being directed to rewrite it's ruling, basically a direction to the lower court to reverse it's own decision.

In the case of Loadholt v. MA, SCOTUS only issued this:

10-5211 LOADHOLT, JASON V. MASSACHUSETTS
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.

The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for further consideration in light of McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010).

Basically the Supreme Court said "The Second Amendment applies to the states, do it again".


Because the SJC's Caetano decision flew in the face of Heller, some folks really hoped for a GVR here. I think that's unlikely.