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

[Chevy 2 65]

I just got back in my office, so I printed but haven't read the decision yet.

Based on posts here . . .



Does this mean (hopefully) that the AWB in MA got thrown under the bus too? Or does Comm2A have to present another case to "define" what the quote above says in a language that the a-holes in the AG's office could understand??




Wow! If that isn't a slap across the face of the AG, EOPS, MCOPA and the DAs, nothing is!!!




Just what I'm thinking, so my question above!


To Comm2A - very glad to have been one of the early supporters. I talk it up at every class that I give. Keep up the awesome work guys!!!!

Len, I was thinking the same thing about the AWB.

Does this mean (hopefully) that the AWB in MA got thrown under the bus too? Or does Comm2A have to present another case to "define" what the quote above says in a language that the a-holes in the AG's office could understand??

 

[bigblue]

Wow that seems to read like they just struck down every AWB and mag limit in existence but I know that I am getting way ahead of myself.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

What is a "per curiam" decision? Does it basically mean the entire court concurred and so there is no dissenting opinion?

This is AMAZING!

That's correct. It's an 8-0 (or possibly a 9-0) decision. To me it means that the SJC's opinion was so far of-base that its rebuke didn't even warrant a justice's signature. The opinion was probably written by a clerk.

I don't think it's difficult to get a unanimous decision out of the Supreme Court when a lower court is this blatant about giving them the middle finger.

 

[soam]

The decision obviously lays a pretty nice bit of groundwork for going after AWBs, but it definitely doesn't have any effect on the AWB on its own. Hell, it doesn't even strike down MA's stun gun ban, it just sends the case back to the SJC and says "your argument is invalid, either come up with another one or change your decision." If the SJC then actually decides in favor of Caetano then the stun gun ban probably goes away, but that still means nothing as far as the AWB is concerned.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Thank You for all you do COMM2A.

[video=youtube_share;IxAKFlpdcfc]http://youtu.be/IxAKFlpdcfc[/video]

 

[VetteGirlMA]

The decision obviously lays a pretty nice bit of groundwork for going after AWBs, but it definitely doesn't have any effect on the AWB on its own. Hell, it doesn't even strike down MA's stun gun ban, it just sends the case back to the SJC and says "your argument is invalid, either come up with another one or change your decision." If the SJC then actually decides in favor of Caetano then the stun gun ban probably goes away, but that still means nothing as far as the AWB is concerned.

I would think that it would make it very hard for the Mass SJC to uphold the AWB ban based on 18th century thinking. They may come up with some other way to rethink the case, but it would require some clever crafting. This decision adds a great deal of strength to the Heller and McDonald decisions.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What needs to be worked out next is sales. Heller doesn't preclude states from requiring a license to purchase a handgun, so I would expect the DPRM to pass legislation limiting stun guns to LTC holders. What is undefined, however, is will shops feel comfortable selling stun guns and real Tasers based on this decision, or are we in a "legal to possess but nobody will sell one to you" scenario?

I would think that it would make it very hard for the Mass SJC to uphold the AWB ban based on 18th century thinking.

When there is a divergence between the "desired outcome" and where clear legal logic leads, SCOTUS simply refused to grant cert, which is how it allowed the Highland Part AK ban to stand without any analysis of the merits of the case.

 

[Len-2A Training]

What needs to be worked out next is sales. Heller doesn't preclude states from requiring a license to purchase a handgun, so I would expect the DPRM to pass legislation limiting stun guns to LTC holders. What is undefined, however, is will shops feel comfortable selling stun guns and real Tasers based on this decision, or are we in a "legal to possess but nobody will sell one to you" scenario?

Agreed, short of a memo from the AG (not likely to happen) to all the MA Dealers telling them that it is OK to sell, many shops will "refuse to get involved"! Paranoia in this state runs extremely deep.

Although less than ideal, going to other states and buying them in person is no issue if you stay away from a few shops that are paranoid about M*******s and keep one's mouth shut about where one lives.

 

[bigblue]

Arfcom discussion on said decision:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/18...n_guns_are_protected_arms__Caetano_vs_MA.html

 

[VetteGirlMA]

At least I know I don't have to lose my AR in a tragic boating accident yet.

 

[browncoat]

What needs to be worked out next is sales. Heller doesn't preclude states from requiring a license to purchase a handgun, so I would expect the DPRM to pass legislation limiting stun guns to LTC holders. What is undefined, however, is will shops feel comfortable selling stun guns and real Tasers based on this decision, or are we in a "legal to possess but nobody will sell one to you" scenario?


When there is a divergence between the "desired outcome" and where clear legal logic leads, SCOTUS simply refused to grant cert, which is how it allowed the Highland Part AK ban to stand without any analysis of the merits of the case.

I imagine that if the SJC reverses it's decision, a very quick legislative fix restricting possession to licensed individuals will be forthcoming. As long as they are legal though, I'm sure those of us who live here will be able to acquire them, even if no one in state can sell them.

 

[1903Collector]

So, among other things the MA court just got bitch slapped! is that correct assessment of this?

 

[soam]

I would think that it would make it very hard for the Mass SJC to uphold the AWB ban based on 18th century thinking. They may come up with some other way to rethink the case, but it would require some clever crafting. This decision adds a great deal of strength to the Heller and McDonald decisions.

The problem is that you're trying to apply logic. The SJC isn't interested in logic, they're interested in upholding the ban. They'll use whatever tortured logic necessary to drag this case out, and when an AWB case comes before them they'll apply that same tortured logic to that case too.

I sincerely hope the SJC will make the right decision when they take up this case again, but I sincerely doubt they will.

 

[jasons]

I imagine that if the SJC reverses it's decision, a very quick legislative fix restricting possession to licensed individuals will be forthcoming. As long as they are legal though, I'm sure those of us who live here will be able to acquire them, even if no one in state can sell them.

I'm sure the "stun gun threat" will be the next legislative emergency. And of course the AG will need to define some bizarre testing kabuki dance to make sure the evil stun gun lobby isn't trying to get one over on we the poor, dumb proletariat.

 

[bigblue]

The problem is that you're trying to apply logic. The SJC isn't interested in logic, they're interested in upholding the ban. They'll use whatever tortured logic necessary to drag this case out, and when an AWB case comes before them they'll apply that same tortured logic to that case too.

I sincerely hope the SJC will make the right decision when they take up this case again, but I sincerely doubt they will.

So what happens if the SJC continues to play ping pong with SCOTUS?

 

[soam]

So what happens if the SJC continues to play ping pong with SCOTUS?

If the SJC upholds the conviction again, then we have to go through the whole process of applying to SCOTUS for cert and waiting for them to take the case. Then hopefully SCOTUS would say "enough is enough" and just decide the case in favor of Caetano instead of remanding it back to the SJC to give them a third bite of the apple.

I don't know if there's any sort of "fast track" for cases that SCOTUS has already decided on once, but if there is then I hope Caetano gets put on it (assuming the SJC rules incorrectly again).

 

[MachineHead]

Fine work, Comm2A, fine work! Always glad to support because we need you to do stuff like this.

 

[jasons]

So what happens if the SJC continues to play ping pong with SCOTUS?

SCOTUS could just take the case instead of remanding it back to the SJC. Not to mention that it's probably not a good career move for SJC justices to keep poking the bear.

My guess is that the SJC will run off with their tails between their legs on this one and let the legislature figure out a new (likely unconstitutional) restriction to start the whole process over. Beacon Hill still has the "reasonable restrictions" card to play and they'll push it to the very edge and beyond. (Not to mention the restrictions that the legislature doesn't even need to be involved in, AG's regs for example.)

 

[soam]

SCOTUS could just take the case instead of remanding it back to the SJC. Not to mention that it's probably not a good career move to keep poking the bear.

My guess is that the SJC will run off with their tails between their legs on this one and let the legislature figure out a new (likely unconstitutional) restriction to start the whole process over. Beacon Hill still has the "reasonable restrictions" card to play and they'll push it to the very edge and beyond.

I can see it now: "New law: All electrical weapons that produce voltages higher than 9 volts are banned. What's that you say, a stun gun that produces so little voltage is completely ineffective? Too bad, challenge the law in court!"

 

[jasons]

I can see it now: "New law: All electrical weapons that produce voltages higher than 9 volts are banned. What's that you say, a stun gun that produces so little voltage is completely ineffective? Too bad, challenge the law in court!"

Well you know lithium batteries can explode if shorted out. That's an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

I would think that it would make it very hard for the Mass SJC to uphold the AWB ban based on 18th century thinking. They may come up with some other way to rethink the case, but it would require some clever crafting. This decision adds a great deal of strength to the Heller and McDonald decisions.

The Mass SJC (and the federal courts in the First Circuit, where Mass is placed) already has a line of reasoning to uphold an AWB. It is the same line of attack that all but one circuit court of appeals has already used. That is to declare that the proper standard of review in gun ban cases is "intermediate scrutiny" and that the state has upheld its burden under that level of review. The goal is get SCOTUS to declare that the proper standard of review is "strict scrutiny."

 

[MachineHead]

One of the big takeaways I see here is this:

"Although the Supreme Judicial Court professed to applyHeller, each step of its analysis defied Heller’s reasoning."

"we held that “the Second Amendment extends,prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearablearms, even those that were not in existence at the time ofthe founding.”"

I just want to throw this one in there lest we forget:

"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."

Thus, reaffirming their stance on the 2A only this time it's unanimous with an 8-0 decision! Maybe it was in honor of Scalia, but it was nonetheless 8-0.

 

[RImike]

Great timing, I am working on my testimony for tomorrow's anti firearm hearings at the RI state house. Can someone please surmise how because of this decision, magazine limits would be considered prohibited?

 

[EC1]

I can see it now: "New law: All electrical weapons that produce voltages higher than 9 volts are banned. What's that you say, a stun gun that produces so little voltage is completely ineffective? Too bad, challenge the law in court!"

It's not the voltage they should worry about but the amperage.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

I can see it now: "New law: All electrical weapons that produce voltages higher than 9 volts are banned. What's that you say, a stun gun that produces so little voltage is completely ineffective? Too bad, challenge the law in court!"

More than 10 uses from a stun gun might be considered a high capacity stun gun, since you should only have to stun someone once and then run away. Let me ask a dumb question to the audience. Suppose stun guns suddenly become legal in MA. Suppose further it requires an LTC to own one. Is it worth adding something else to carry other than a handgun, spare ammo, pepper spray, and a knife? If I'm at the point where I am drawing a handgun, what difference is a stun gun going to make? Walking around with all of this is going to make me feel like batman except I am trying to conceal everything from stupid busybodies. Otherwise I am going to need a bat utility belt to wear never mind the sash.

 

[Point37]

More than 10 uses from a stun gun might be considered a high capacity stun gun, since you should only have to stun someone once and then run away. Let me ask a dumb question to the audience. Suppose stun guns suddenly become legal in MA. Suppose further it requires an LTC to own one. Is it worth adding something else to carry other than a handgun, spare ammo, pepper spray, and a knife? If I'm at the point where I am drawing a handgun, what difference is a stun gun going to make? Walking around with all of this is going to make me feel like batman except I am trying to conceal everything from stupid busybodies. Otherwise I am going to need a bat utility belt to wear never mind the sash.

what is the storage/transportation laws on pepper spray?...do you have to carry it on your person?...can you leave it in your glove box in your car?...if so i would hope the same could be done with a stun gun...it would be a good thing to have when you aren't carrying but i don't see a point when you are carrying

 

[Friday]

So, does this mean someone could bring suit against the commonwealth for chapter 140, Ch 131J? Or does the state get a chance to re-legislate itself out of trouble?

 

[soam]

So, does this mean someone could bring suit against the commonwealth for chapter 140, Ch 131J? Or does the state get a chance to re-legislate itself out of trouble?

Right now it means the SJC gets another chance to BS their way to an explanation of how 131J is constitutional. If they actually do the right thing and rule 131J unconstitutional and overturn Caetano's conviction, then stun guns would become legal in MA. The legislature could always pass another law, and I could definitely see them passing a law limiting stun guns to LTC holders or some such thing.

 

[bigblue]

More than 10 uses from a stun gun might be considered a high capacity stun gun, since you should only have to stun someone once and then run away. Let me ask a dumb question to the audience. Suppose stun guns suddenly become legal in MA. Suppose further it requires an LTC to own one. Is it worth adding something else to carry other than a handgun, spare ammo, pepper spray, and a knife? If I'm at the point where I am drawing a handgun, what difference is a stun gun going to make? Walking around with all of this is going to make me feel like batman except I am trying to conceal everything from stupid busybodies. Otherwise I am going to need a bat utility belt to wear never mind the sash.

I think this question will become more important as the size of stun guns approach the size of pepper spray.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Thus, reaffirming their stance on the 2A only this time it's unanimous with an 8-0 decision! Maybe it was in honor of Scalia, but it was nonetheless 8-0.

The paranoid part of me considers the possibility that this was designed as a harmless distracter by the anti-2A folks on the bench, issued to convince those confirming the next SCOTUS justice that there is a balanced and intellectually sound view of the 2A and stare decisis on the bench.