Gun Control & RKBA

TeddyR

(2,493 posts) Tue Mar 22, 2016, 08:55 AM Mar 2016

Supreme Court zaps Massachusetts stun-gun opinion

Today, in Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court vacated a decision by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that had concluded that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not apply to stun guns. The Court’s per curiam opinion scolded the Massachusetts court for its failure to apply the proper legal tests under D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, and quite rightly so. The court did not reach the ultimate question of whether stun guns constitute “arms” for Second Amendment purposes, however, instead vacating and remanding the state court opinion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/21/supreme-court-zaps-massachusetts-stun-gun-opinion/

This is an interesting opinion that is ultimately about the Second Amendment and not just limited to stun guns. First, note that it is per curiam, and presumably unanimous. That means Breyer, et al joined in. This decision reinforces both the viability of Heller and the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. It also disposes of any argument that the Second Amendment only applies to arms that were in existence at the time the Second Amendment was enacted.

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court zaps Massachusetts stun-gun opinion (Original Post) TeddyR Mar 2016 OP

If I heard correctly, a unanimous decision to reverse too. DonP Mar 2016 #1

"Per curiam" means unanimous, so yeah. friendly_iconoclast Mar 2016 #3

This is quite notable. Gun-controllers should especially take notice. Eleanors38 Mar 2016 #2

To be clear TeddyR Mar 2016 #4

DonP

(6,185 posts)

1. If I heard correctly, a unanimous decision to reverse too.

Reply to TeddyR (Original post)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 09:42 AM

Mar 2016

So even the Liberal SCOTUS judges insist on seeing Heller and McDonald interpreted correctly.

Bad news for some folks.

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)

3. "Per curiam" means unanimous, so yeah.

Reply to DonP (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 11:00 PM

Mar 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_curiam_decision

In law, a per curiam decision (or opinion) is a ruling issued by an appellate court of multiple judges in which the decision rendered is made by the court (or at least, a majority of the court) acting collectively and unanimously.[1] In contrast to regular opinions, a per curiam does not list the individual judge responsible for authoring the decision,[1] but minority dissenting and concurring decisions are signed.

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)

2. This is quite notable. Gun-controllers should especially take notice.

Reply to TeddyR (Original post)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 12:44 PM

Mar 2016

Placing ones hopes in cramming gun-control justices onto the court with the goal of overturning Heller seem's even more a fool's errand.

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)

4. To be clear

Reply to TeddyR (Original post)

Wed Mar 23, 2016, 11:05 AM

Mar 2016

I don't think the dissenters in Heller suddenly converted, but (1) they don't have the votes to reverse Heller and (2) so long as Heller is the law of the land the Supreme Court -- including the dissenters in Heller -- are going to require courts to apply it correctly, and the Massachusetts Supreme Court clearly did not in this case, which is why you get a unanimous decision. So while there may not be much more expansion of Second Amendment rights -- I would be shocked if this Court found a constitutional right to concealed carry -- the Court is not going to let the states ignore Heller.

Reply to this discussion