Ms. Caetano carried a stun gun in her purse to protect herself from an abusive ex. While police were investigating her for an alleged shoplift, Caetano encouraged the police to search her purse so they could see she hadn't stolen anything. The police didn't find any loot in Caetano's purse, but they did find the stun gun. In Massachusetts, possessing a stun gun is a crime punishable by up to 30 months in prison.
Caetano was charged with, and convicted of, possession of a stun gun. She appealed her conviction to Massachusetts' high court on grounds the statute proscribing the possession of stun guns infringed upon her Second Amendment right to "bear arms". Massachusetts affirmed Caetano's conviction, holding the Second Amendment doesn't apply to a stun gun. Caetano's petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
The United States Supreme Court grants the petition, vacates the Massachusetts high court's decision, and remands the matter for further proceedings.
Massachusetts held a stun gun did not qualify for Second Amendment protection for three reasons. First, stun guns were not in common use in 1789, the year the Amendment was enacted. Second, stun guns are "dangerous and unusual" weapons, which are excluded from Second Amendment protection. Third, nothing suggests stun guns are readily adaptable to use in the military.
The main problem with the first and third arguments is that Heller pretty explicitly rejected both. The problem with the second argument is that Massachusetts supporting argument was just a naked restatement of argument number one.
The per curiam opinion is all of one and half pages. Justices Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, pens a mawkish concurrence which contains the statement, "[a] State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people
safe." This is a curious statement from a textualist/originalist, as I can find nothing in the Constitution to support it. It is also a bad choice of words as Massachusetts could probably argue her prohibition of stun guns was enacted with that "basic" goal in mind, keeping people safe.
What is not broached in this case is the issue of whether (or how far) the right of armed self-defense extends outside the home. Caetano was carrying her stun gun in public (as she was homeless, it was her only alternative) but this fact doesn't come into play given the controversy is limited to whether stun guns are entitled to Second Amendment protection. I may be wrong, but the silence on this issue seems to suggest a tacit acknowledgment that the Second Amendment protects carrying arms (to some extent) in public.
In California, Heller has been very narrowly interpreted to apply only to the possession of arms within the home. It is still a crime in California, absent a CCP, to carry a gun in your purse or even place your gun within your car's glove box. Reading Alito's concurrence, I am convinced he (and Thomas) would find both of these proscriptions unconstitutional. But this issue will be for another day.
No comments:
Post a Comment