Mar 21, 2016: US Supreme Court unanimously throws out conviction based on 2nd amendment grounds

[ExPatty 502]

Great news today for gun-rights advocates. Not getting much press in the news, but 8 justices all agreed to throw the conviction of an MA woman who had a stun gun to protect herself from a guy unphased by restraining orders.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-gives-boost-stun-gun-owners-n542566

The ruling cast doubt over a handful of state bans on possessing Tasers and other kinds of stun guns.

This is, to me, a slightly strange ruling. They kicked it back to a lower court. The SCOTUS didn't outright say stun guns are protected, but rather said the lower court's excuses for why it didn't were wrong, and in direct conflict with Heller 2008, so they need to try again. Given the barely 5:4 wins of Heller & McDonald it's nice to see the supreme court all agree on a ruling based on the second, and take Heller seriously.

Basically this case was "Hey, we were serious with Heller, stop screwing around." I hope some other states can take some heed from this, because a lot have basically ignored Heller. There are pending cases bubbling up from a couple of states now about the assault weapons bans. Those cases looked more dim for AW proponents since the passing of Scalia, though with today's ruling it's clear the rest of the SCOTUS are paying at least some attention to Heller as well.

[newacct 688]

Maybe they are kicking it back to a lower court to stall for time while they wait for a new justice to be confirmed who might decide a new 5-4 ruling.

[lostinblue 1,989]

1. "We found the argument“that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are

   protected by the Second Amendment” not merely wrong,

   but “bordering on the frivolous.” 554 U. S., at 582. In*

   stead, we held that “the Second Amendment extends,

   prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable

   arms,

   even those that were not in existence at the time of

   the founding

That strengthens the case for allowing the most widely held rifle (in the usa ) the AR-15 Something Teddy always tries to argue that they need to be banned on this forum.

[ExPatty 502]

• "We found the argumentthat only those arms in existence in the 18th century are

  protected by the Second Amendment not merely wrong,

  but bordering on the frivolous. 554 U. S., at 582. In*

  stead, we held that the Second Amendment extends,

  prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable

  arms,

  even those that were not in existence at the time of

  the founding

That strengthens the case for allowing the most widely held rifle (in the usa ) the AR-15 Something Teddy always tries to argue that they need to be banned on this forum.

The opinion by alito and Thomas make it clear they support AW but it is still a big uphill battle against the leftists in the court, to be sure.

[Webdevman 93]

So she is a member of the highly regulated militia or a stun gun isn't really a gun?

[lostinblue 1,989]

So she is a member of the highly regulated militia or a stun gun isn't really a gun?

this is not a mere "possession" case, that it is in fact a carry case (and clearly so, since the woman in question is HOMELESS and thus has no where that she could merely "possess" or Keep that weapon),

In a historic, but extremely short unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment applies "to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,". As this is an enormous class of nearly all weapons, the decision is properly applied to knives and clubs, and nearly all firearms that have been sold in the United States. Nearly all types of firearms are more common than stun guns.

"If the fundamental right of self defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe," Alito wrote.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-gives-boost-stun-gun-owners-n542566

[ExPatty 502]

So she is a member of the highly regulated militia or a stun gun isn't really a gun?

1) Second does not require one to be part of a militia to exercise its right. SCOTUS has already ruled on this

2) The second refers to arms, not guns

[Webdevman 93]

1) Second does not require one to be part of a militia to exercise its right. SCOTUS has already ruled on this

2) The second refers to arms, not guns

Glad my arms are protected. What about my legs?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Great news today for gun-rights advocates. Not getting much press in the news, but 8 justices all agreed to throw the conviction of an MA woman who had a stun gun to protect herself from a guy unphased by restraining orders.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-gives-boost-stun-gun-owners-n542566

This is, to me, a slightly strange ruling. They kicked it back to a lower court. The SCOTUS didn't outright say stun guns are protected, but rather said the lower court's excuses for why it didn't were wrong, and in direct conflict with Heller 2008, so they need to try again. Given the barely 5:4 wins of Heller & McDonald it's nice to see the supreme court all agree on a ruling based on the second, and take Heller seriously.

Basically this case was "Hey, we were serious with Heller, stop screwing around." I hope some other states can take some heed from this, because a lot have basically ignored Heller. There are pending cases bubbling up from a couple of states now about the assault weapons bans. Those cases looked more dim for AW proponents since the passing of Scalia, though with today's ruling it's clear the rest of the SCOTUS are paying at least some attention to Heller as well.

It's not a strange ruling. The case was remanded for ruling by the lower court consistent with the ruling in the Supreme Court case. If Heller says the Second Amendment applies to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, and the MA Supreme Court's ruling did not comply with Heller, then the lower court ruling must be vacated, as it has been here. This relates to a matter of state law (the MA state law that banned stun guns for civilians), so the state must implement the ruling of the Supreme Court through its own state court system. Note that while the lower court must rule consistently with the the opinion of the Supreme Court, this does not mean that SCOTUS has vacated her conviction, and the state may still come up with a new legal theory to support its ban if it complies with Heller. (Note: I am not a mystic and do not know what theory this might be, but this remains in the realm of possibility.) Or the state could amend the law to permit licensing of stun guns as it licenses "regular" guns.

Further, Heller is law. SCOTUS could not rule inconsistently with Heller. Nor was this case a direct challenge to Heller. For the Court to ignore Heller here would be unconstitutional. It is, however, interesting because it is (from what I understand) the first post-Heller case that addresses some of the Heller issues.

So it's not strange. It proceeded exactly as it should.

Glad my arms are protected. What about my legs?

I recommend trousers.