California Right To Carry
Regular Member
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.
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: