Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: SCOTUS Decisions of March 21, 2016 - Caetano, Powell and Bonidy

  1. #1
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Post SCOTUS Decisions of March 21, 2016 - Caetano, Powell and Bonidy

    We won in Caetano v. Massachusetts

    The Per Curiam decision in Caetano is available at the link above.

    The pundits have differing opinions as to whether or not stun guns are protected arms or if the decision merely held that the reasoning by the Massachusetts high court in holding that stun guns are not protected arms was faulty. Personally, I don’t see how one can read the decision and not come away with the conclusion that SCOTUS said that stun guns are protected arms but I guess we’ll have to wait and see what the Massachusetts high court does on remand.

    Cert Petitions were denied without explanation in:

    Powell v. Tompkins
    Bonidy v. USPS

    EDIT: Procedurally, the Massachusetts high court is free to invent new reasons why stun guns are not protected, affirm the conviction again and Caetano will be back before the US Supreme Court. Personally, I can't imagine what those new reasons could possibly be given the what the per curiam said but time will tell.
    Last edited by California Right To Carry; 03-22-2016 at 09:56 PM.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Awesome, just awesome. A must-read for all those who can stomach legalese. This opinion may bode well for future so-called 'assault-weapons' bans, but the only issue I have with this holding is that it is a "per curiam" decision which is a decision delivered via an opinion issued in the name of the Court rather than in the name specific individual judges. My guess is that the 4 anti-Heller justices bit their tongue and sat this one out.
    Last edited by OC4me; 03-21-2016 at 02:39 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Awesome, just awesome. A must-read for all those who can stomach legalese. This opinion may bode well for future so-called 'assault-weapons' bans, but the only issue I have with this holding is that it is a "per curiam" decision which is a decision delivered via an opinion issued in the name of the Court rather than in the name specific individual judges. My guess is that the 4 anti-Heller justices bit their tongue and sat this one out.
    Heller and McDonald were divided decisions. Caetano was a per curiam decision without a dissent which means for all practical purposes the decision in Caetano is unanimous.

    The Caetano decision is about more than stun guns. Procedurally, the MSJC could invent new reasons to uphold the ban on stun guns and if it does then this case will be back before SCOTUS again. The most important thing about the Caetano decision is that it was a unanimous slap down to the MSJC telling them that the Heller decision meant exactly what it said AND what the Heller decision said was not limited to the specific facts of the Heller decision.

    The Friedman "assault rifle" case which was denied cert could have been handled the same way as Caetano but wasn't. Perhaps there was an element of posthumous empathy for Scalia's dissent (concurrence in dissent) in Friedman reflected in Caetano's per curiam. We'll never know.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    THANK YOU for the news, and best wishes in your ongoing efforts.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    From Alito's concurrence: "First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes."

    Makes one think, eh?
    Last edited by BB62; 03-21-2016 at 04:22 PM.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    From Alito's concurrence: "First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes."

    Makes one think, eh?
    Makes me think I want to order up a couple rapid-firing Swedish naval guns. Maybe a couple Tomahawk missiles.*

    Now, where did I put those catalogs? I wonder if I will have to pay freight and processing.





    Oh, c'mon! The US government will never in a million years admit to using a Tomahawk missile unlawfully. Hey! That reminds me! Predator drones and Hellfire missiles. Gotta get a couple of those, too.
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-21-2016 at 07:41 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    What is interesting on the case was that the woman was homeless at the time of her arrest. So there can be no claim that the decision was only for in the home. Another interesting point is the stun gun was concealed in the woman's purse, which she let police search. Her mistake gave us a big win, but she should have forced them to get a warrant.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    From Alito's concurrence: "First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes."

    Makes one think, eh?
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Makes me think I want to order up a couple rapid-firing Swedish naval guns. Maybe a couple Tomahawk missiles. ...
    My thinking was that Alito's quote would be well used responding to the oft-used "explanations" of why commoners shouldn't be legally allowed to own "assault weapons".

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Awesome, just awesome. A must-read for all those who can stomach legalese. This opinion may bode well for future so-called 'assault-weapons' bans, but the only issue I have with this holding is that it is a "per curiam" decision which is a decision delivered via an opinion issued in the name of the Court rather than in the name specific individual judges. My guess is that the 4 anti-Heller justices bit their tongue and sat this one out.
    i think its a slam dunk against gun bans ...... I'll be at my next town hall meeting demanding that they issue out a proclamation saying that they will not enforce PA13-3 / SB 1160 that was passed in my commie state !! All in CT should do so !

    And NY !

    All, everywhere .... tell them to stop this tyranny against our natural rights !

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,202
    The states, cities that have bans on common weapons like knifes, sticks, ect should be very worried
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  11. #11
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    The states, cities that have bans on common weapons like knifes, sticks, ect should be very worried
    New York in particular, it is illegal to carry most knives in NYC.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    The states, cities that have bans on common weapons like knifes, sticks, ect should be very worried
    For now those repressive regimes will just fall back to prohibitions on public carry in keeping with their ongoing legal fantasy that Heller only applies in the home.
    Last edited by OC4me; 04-03-2016 at 03:17 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,202
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    For now those repressive regimes will just fall back to prohibitions on carry outside the home in keeping with their ongoing legal fantasy that Heller only applies in the home.
    considering this ruleing has to do with out side the home that portion of Heller was most likely made irrelevant.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Awesome, just awesome. A must-read for all those who can stomach legalese. This opinion may bode well for future so-called 'assault-weapons' bans, but the only issue I have with this holding is that it is a "per curiam" decision which is a decision delivered via an opinion issued in the name of the Court rather than in the name specific individual judges. My guess is that the 4 anti-Heller justices bit their tongue and sat this one out.
    My motto is: if you cannot explain your decision in one page then you should hand out toilet paper with so people can be prepared

  15. #15
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    But they will have to pass those bans on "outside the home" carry as legislation

    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    For now those repressive regimes will just fall back to prohibitions on carry outside the home in keeping with their ongoing legal fantasy that Heller only applies in the home.
    They will have to pass the bans on outside the home carry as legislation. This may prove difficult in a number of cases. New York comes to mind.

    I think a carry ban on knives, by a homeless, minority, woman, who has been attacked by a domestic abuser, would be a good case to file...

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    The pundits have differing opinions as to whether or not stun guns are protected arms.
    The pundits are idiots.

    Our Founding Fathers knew very well the distinction between the specific category of "firearms" and the more broad and encompassing set known as "armaments." They also knew the term "arms" was a highly used shortened version of "armaments," which includes firearms, knives, swords, hammers, spears, bow and arrow, cannon, clubs, axes, pitchforks and even hand-held rocks.

    That was then. In modern time, the Second Amendment's use of the word "arms" most certainly includes stun guns.

    I am glad the court demonstrated that it is capable of reading English. I sometimes wonder...
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    king county
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    Heller and McDonald were divided decisions. Caetano was a per curiam decision without a dissent which means for all practical purposes the decision in Caetano is unanimous.

    The Caetano decision is about more than stun guns. Procedurally, the MSJC could invent new reasons to uphold the ban on stun guns and if it does then this case will be back before SCOTUS again. The most important thing about the Caetano decision is that it was a unanimous slap down to the MSJC telling them that the Heller decision meant exactly what it said AND what the Heller decision said was not limited to the specific facts of the Heller decision.

    The Friedman "assault rifle" case which was denied cert could have been handled the same way as Caetano but wasn't. Perhaps there was an element of posthumous empathy for Scalia's dissent (concurrence in dissent) in Friedman reflected in Caetano's per curiam. We'll never know.
    Caetano release just after I filed suit against the city of Seattle for its anti-knife-carrying laws and after the city made its answer.

    Oh, well . . .

    If any of you happen to be a lawyer, do you wish to help a bit and make some history in Washington state?

    z
    Last edited by zaitz; 04-06-2016 at 11:41 PM.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by zaitz View Post
    Caetano release just after I filed suit against the city of Seattle for its anti-knife-carrying laws and after the city made its answer.

    Oh, well . . .

    If any of you happen to be a lawyer, do you wish to help a bit and make some history in Washington state?

    z
    I'm not a lawyer, but I do legal research for attorneys, and have a way of translating convoluted legalese into modern (and proper) English in a way that judges find it very difficult to ignore.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  19. #19
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,886
    Quote Originally Posted by zaitz View Post
    Caetano release just after I filed suit against the city of Seattle for its anti-knife-carrying laws and after the city made its answer.

    Oh, well . . .

    If any of you happen to be a lawyer, do you wish to help a bit and make some history in Washington state?

    z
    do you have a case number for your filed suit?

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •