# Supreme Court Issues Shocking Ruling In First Post-Scalia 2nd Amendment Case



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

I am leaning toward this being an oddity, but it does set precedence for future rulings.



> The court overturned a decision out of Massachusetts that determined that stun guns were not covered by the Second Amendment, siding instead with a woman who said she carried one as protection against an abusive former boyfriend.
> 
> In an unsigned decision with no dissents, the country's highest court ruled in favor of Jaime Caetano, who in 2011 was arrested for possession of a stun gun in violation of a state law banning such weapons. Caetano said she carried the stun gun for self-defense because her former partner was violent and abusive.
> 
> In March 2015, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the stun gun was not covered by the constitutional right to bear arms. The Supreme Court, however, decided that ruling was inconsistent with a 2008 Supreme Court decision declaring an individual right to bear arms.


Supreme Court Issues Shocking Ruling In First Post-Scalia 2nd Amendment Case

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/21/in_caetano_v_massachusetts_supreme_court_protects_stun_guns_as_second_amendment.html

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2016/03/supreme-court-rules-that-second.html


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

I like it. "It sends a message that a broad array of weapons are covered by the 2nd Amendment." Knife laws are so vague in PA, maybe this is the beginning of change.


----------



## Targetshooter (Dec 4, 2015)

Looks to me that there is light at the end of the tunnel ,, but the end of the tunnel is a very long way away .


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Why do I get a feeling that this is misdirection in order to somehow get Garland confirmed and then drop the hammer?


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

RedLion said:


> Why do I get a feeling that this is misdirection in order to somehow get Garland confirmed and then drop the hammer?


Oh noes! You're beginning to think like a politician!


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

sideKahr said:


> Oh noes! You're beginning to think like a politician!


Given my work, I guess in a way I have to be persuasive. I just wished I was as persuasive as I would like to be with the women in my life.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Perhaps a bit of misdirection. I would watch to see what the other hand is doing. The right to carry stun gun is in no way the same as carrying gun in their mind.


----------



## ffparamedic (Dec 14, 2015)

Maybe a ploy to set a precedence that less lethal options are covered but we don't need these "high capacity assault weapons"....


----------



## Grim Reality (Mar 19, 2014)

The 2nd Amendment was established primarily to ensure that the people, on short notice, could rise up and
by constituting militias, confront invaders. This presumes they would have arms comparable to any that a
regular army would have. Otherwise we would only be guaranteed the right to carry Flintlocks!

With that in mind...Where's my M-60? Or better yet an M-2 Browning?

I'm not canvassing for an M-1 Abrams Tank! But the people SHOULD be able to possess arms comparable
to those of an invading (or standing) force. Right now...that is not the case.

Grim


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Grim Reality said:


> The 2nd Amendment was established primarily to ensure that the people, on short notice, could rise up and
> by constituting militias, confront invaders. This presumes they would have arms comparable to any that a
> regular army would have. Otherwise we would only be guaranteed the right to carry Flintlocks!
> 
> ...


I totally agree. I should have an M-1 sitting in my driveway, fully fueled, up loaded and ready to go. Of course I would need to train 3 neighbors to crew it with me, but I agree with you.


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

Even British cops can carry stunguns. 

I don't understand how you can use a lethal weapon but not a nonlethal one, seems peculiar. 

Of course there are different characteristics of action, I think the premise here is that anything which is less lethal than what was known at the time as lawful under the 2nd should be lawful, if I understand the premise here.

The question is however, what designates an arm vs. a nonarm?

Does the decision say where the lines are?


----------



## jdbushcraft (Mar 26, 2015)

RedLion said:


> I totally agree. I should have an M-1 sitting in my driveway, fully fueled, up loaded and ready to go. Of course I would need to train 3 neighbors to crew it with me, but I agree with you.


And if your driveway was very long you might need a refuel point at the end of it;-)


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

"It's better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six". I truly believe this, save your life first worry about the law after that.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

jdbushcraft said:


> And if your driveway was very long you might need a refuel point at the end of it;-)


505.5 gallons per fill up would take some space, not to mention safe storage for main gun ammo, .50 cal ammo and M240 ammo.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Hillary's goal is to add the language: "While serving in the Militia" to the second amendment.


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

Don't get too excited. They didn't "overturn" the decision. They vacated the decision and sent it back for further review. Had they actually overturned the decision, they wouldn't have had to send it back down the line.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

Ha, ha, ha, take that Mass-A-Stupid! 
Criminalizing stun guns is a really halfwit thing to do, but you are the state that did it.
Even the Supreme Court thinks that you are dopes. What are women supposed to use, their fingernails?


----------



## Grim Reality (Mar 19, 2014)

The position of many anti-gun zealots is that it is far better that you DIE, than that you live ARMED.

Naturally their position changes dramatically as soon as they find THEMSELVES the crime victim!

I recall there were some states that legislated a homeowner had to run to the farthest corner of their
house and hide versus confronting a home invasion. Is that still the case in some states? Which ones?
I don't want to make the mistake of moving to ANY of them! 

Grim

And I have been zapped by a Stun Gun! It felt like a bee sting! In LFI-1 by Massad Ayoob, we were 
zapped, then had to draw and put 5 accurate rounds on target within 5 seconds. It was stressful (that 
was the idea) but it wasn't THAT difficult. Stun guns (at least that type) are a bother, but they did not 
DISABLE any of us that took the course.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> Hillary's goal is to add the language: "While serving in the Militia" to the second amendment.


The founders consistently considered "the militia" to consist of all able-bodied men. There was no formal designation.
Her addition (though this is tongue in cheek) would allow all men to have weapons, and leave women defenseless. I'm sure that would sit well with her bra burners pushing her into office.


----------



## chocks141 (Nov 21, 2015)

I was surprised to read a statement from the SCOTUS, something to the effect that the 2nd amendment protected stun guns even though they were not around when the founders wrote the Bill of Rights. This is defiantly a light at the end of the tunnel


----------



## Dirk Pitt (Apr 21, 2015)

Targetshooter said:


> Looks to me that there is light at the end of the tunnel


Lets just hope it's not a train.............


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

Here is my suspicion - By INCLUDING stun and other non-lethal weapons IN 2a, they can essentially neuter it by confiscating all firearms and leaving 2a in tact. Like them saying, "See? You still have super soakers and nerf-guns so technically we never got rid of the second amendment and we even loosened up gun laws so you can have high capacity nerf-guns. Look at how pro-gun we are."

No sir. I do not like it or agree with the ruling. The spirit of 2a was to ensure that the power was held by the people. No one stops tyranny with mace and a taser.


----------

