Monday, March 2, 2015

Unbelievable, Except It Is Massachusetts


For John, BLUFThe Commonwealth is often well behind settled law.  It was that way when I moved up here and had to pay income tax on my Air Force retirement, until the Commonwealth settled a law suit on the issue, years after other states had accepted the law.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



Today the Supreme Judicial Court said stun guns are not guns, at least as understood by the Second Amendment.  The reference is SJC-11718 and the case is COMMONWEALTH vs. JAIME CAETANO.

Here it is in a nutshell:

The defendant, Jaime Caetano, asks us to interpret the holdings of the United States Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 791 (2010), and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008), to afford her a right under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to possess a stun gun in public for the purpose of self-defense. The defendant was arrested for possession of a stun gun in a supermarket parking lot, claiming it was necessary to protect herself against an abusive former boy friend. She now challenges the constitutionality of G. L. c. 140, § 131J, which bans entirely the possession of an electrical weapon with some exceptions not applicable here. We hold that a stun gun is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection, see Heller, supra at 622, and we affirm the defendant's conviction.
I wonder what this means for the Lowell Police tight grip on issuance of gun licenses?  Per his appearance on City Life this AM, our City Manager, Kevin Murphy, seems to think our policy, notwithstanding McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 791 (2010), and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008), will be upheld.  I texted in:
If guns goes toward SCOTUS, we lose money and the case.
Maybe not at the Supreme Judicial Court.  Second Amendment advocates may have to go all the way to the US Supreme Court.

Where do I send my contribution to the law suit to protect our rights?

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

No comments: