The justices ordered the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to rehear Caetano v. Massachusetts, reasserting two key gun rights rulings. The Massachusetts court had ruled against Jaime Caetano after she was convicted of carrying a stun gun she had acquired to protect herself from an abusive ex-boyfriend. The court reasoned that stun guns “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment” and, therefore, not protected by the amendment.
The Supreme Court rebuked the lower court for straying from the precedent set by the high court in both District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. In Heller, the court established that Second Amendment protections extend to arms that did not exist at the time of the founding. In McDonald, the court extended that standard to the state level.
The Supreme Court ordered the Massachusetts court to rule in a manner consistent with the high court’s precedents when it rehears the case.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas issued a separate but concurring opinion on the case. They accused the lower court of openly defying the precedents set by the high court.
More
6 comments:
Please note that it was unanimous, for those always crying about the liberal court.
Win.
That is not a "stun gun" It is a taser. The words are not interchangeable. They are vastly different and do not produce the same effects on the body.
It was unanimous because.., "The court reasoned that stun guns “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment”"
Anyone that votes for something like that doesn't belong out of the first grade let alone sitting as a state Supreme Court judge.
Fan I carry my taser then?
So, my mini 9mm semi-auto didn't exist at the time of the founding, either. So now I can carry that in Maryland any time I want to.
Post a Comment