• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
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:

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
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:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
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.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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. ...
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".
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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 !
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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
 

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
But they will have to pass those bans on "outside the home" carry as legislation

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...
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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...
 

zaitz

Banned
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
162
Location
king county
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:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
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
 
Top