Korwin: New Supreme Court Gun Case Protects Helpless Women

[MickeyW]

The Caetano Supreme Court gun decision had so many critically important features it is unfathomable it did not steal the entire news cycle when it hit on March 21, 2016. A mere shooting by a sick person in a small town does that.

The U.S. Supreme Court just handed down such a monumental Second Amendment decision—its 113th gun case—that if the mainstream media had been doing its job it would have dominated the front page for days, and devoured cable news chatter for 24 hours daily, worse than the jihad or any other minor preemption that consumes news.

It basically confirms that guns are good. They protect the helpless. They have social utility. Lower courts that attempt to write this out of the law by making things up, ignoring history and legal precedent—like the Massachusetts court did—have no place in our legal system. Concocting inventions from thin air that don’t even make sense, to advance an anti-rights agenda, earned ridicule.

Even the liberal SCOTUS Justices all joined the decision. This is news. It’s big news. It’s monufrickinmental.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/ko...preme-court-gun-case-protects-helpless-women/

 

[azgreg]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

 

[haymarket]

The Caetano Supreme Court gun decision had so many critically important features it is unfathomable it did not steal the entire news cycle when it hit on March 21, 2016. A mere shooting by a sick person in a small town does that.

The U.S. Supreme Court just handed down such a monumental Second Amendment decision—its 113th gun case—that if the mainstream media had been doing its job it would have dominated the front page for days, and devoured cable news chatter for 24 hours daily, worse than the jihad or any other minor preemption that consumes news.

It basically confirms that guns are good. They protect the helpless. They have social utility. Lower courts that attempt to write this out of the law by making things up, ignoring history and legal precedent—like the Massachusetts court did—have no place in our legal system. Concocting inventions from thin air that don’t even make sense, to advance an anti-rights agenda, earned ridicule.

Even the liberal SCOTUS Justices all joined the decision. This is news. It’s big news. It’s monufrickinmental.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/ko...preme-court-gun-case-protects-helpless-women/

Guns are good!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

WOW!!!!!!!!

And all this time I thought they were simply objects that were not good nor bad but could be used either way. Amazing the things you read these days.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The Caetano Supreme Court gun decision had so many critically important features it is unfathomable it did not steal the entire news cycle when it hit on March 21, 2016. A mere shooting by a sick person in a small town does that.

The U.S. Supreme Court just handed down such a monumental Second Amendment decision—its 113th gun case—that if the mainstream media had been doing its job it would have dominated the front page for days, and devoured cable news chatter for 24 hours daily, worse than the jihad or any other minor preemption that consumes news.

It basically confirms that guns are good. They protect the helpless. They have social utility. Lower courts that attempt to write this out of the law by making things up, ignoring history and legal precedent—like the Massachusetts court did—have no place in our legal system. Concocting inventions from thin air that don’t even make sense, to advance an anti-rights agenda, earned ridicule.

Even the liberal SCOTUS Justices all joined the decision. This is news. It’s big news. It’s monufrickinmental.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/ko...preme-court-gun-case-protects-helpless-women/

Thank you for bringing this to my attention!!!

WOW:

A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself.

To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds.

This Court’s grudging per curiam now sends the case back to that same court. And the consequences for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for self-defense.

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.

... Just WOW!!!

 

[Captain Adverse]

Here are the three key statements in this decision:

1.

First, the (Massachusetts Supreme) court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

2.

...the (Massachusetts Supreme) court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

3.

...the (Massachusetts Supreme) court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

The ruling is per curiam, meaning the decision rendered is made by the court acting collectively and unanimously.

 

[MickeyW]

Some days are just good days.

 

[MickeyW]

Guns are good!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

WOW!!!!!!!!

And all this time I thought they were simply objects that were not good nor bad but could be used either way. Amazing the things you read these days.

I'm soooo happy that you are pleased with this ruling!

 

[haymarket]

I'm soooo happy that you are pleased with this ruling!

I suspect you got it but instead opted to distort my post as I expressed no support for the ruling. I was expressing shock at your twisting of it.

 

[MickeyW]

I suspect you got it but instead opted to distort my post as I expressed no support for the ruling. I was expressing shock at your twisting of it.

I twist nothing.....the ruling is self explanatory, is a terrific one.... and a big win for the 2nd Amendment. I chose the high road instead of responding to your normal BS.

 

[Sherman123]

This is a very good ruling but I think some, in their enthusiasm, might misinterpret its meaning and future application because it pointedly doesn't foreclose virtually all other gun/weapon control measures short of blanket prohibitions.

 

[reinoe]

This is a very good ruling but I think some, in their enthusiasm, might misinterpret its meaning and future application because it pointedly doesn't foreclose virtually all other gun/weapon control measures short of blanket prohibitions.

Massachussett's ruling was the one that was messed up and distorted. It was utterly ridiculous. It's why I find it hard to imagine the horror of living in some liberal states.

 

[Sherman123]

Massachussett's ruling was the one that was messed up and distorted. It was utterly ridiculous. It's why I find it hard to imagine the horror of living in some liberal states.

Yes it was an atrocious and distorted decision. But 'conservative states' have their fair share of atrocious decisions. Its why we need a balanced federal judiciary.

 

[Kal'Stang]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Loved this part.

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.

That right there is EXACTLY what's happening...particularly in this case.

 

[MickeyW]

Massachussett's ruling was the one that was messed up and distorted. It was utterly ridiculous. It's why I find it hard to imagine the horror of living in some liberal states.

Mega Dittos on that!!! :thumbs::thumbs:

Loved this part.



That right there is EXACTLY what's happening...particularly in this case.

Yep!

 

[MickeyW]

Guns are good!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

WOW!!!!!!!!

And all this time I thought they were simply objects that were not good nor bad but could be used either way. Amazing the things you read these days.

The Court has 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,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

 

[haymarket]

The Court has 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,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

What does this have to do as reply to the post from me that you led with?

 

[MickeyW]

What does this have to do as reply to the post from me that you led with?

Probably nothing....but post # 18 might help.

 

[MickeyW]

This is a very good ruling but I think some, in their enthusiasm, might misinterpret its meaning and future application because it pointedly doesn't foreclose virtually all other gun/weapon control measures short of blanket prohibitions.

But it DOES reaffirm the Heller and McDonald decisions unanimously. It also is a shot across the bows of liberal courts that SCOTUS will not be ignored on the issue of the RIGHT of self-defense, and the RIGHT to use potentially lethal arms in common usage to secure their safety. The recent Second Amendment decisions supersedes Miller, which was incorrectly applied by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Local political desires to limit citizen rights through bans of commonly used weapons are moot in this matter of guns, stun guns, clubs or what have you.

 

[Sherman123]

But it DOES reaffirm the Heller and McDonald decisions unanimously. It also is a shot across the bows of liberal courts that SCOTUS will not be ignored on the issue of the RIGHT of self-defense, and the RIGHT to use potentially lethal arms in common usage to secure their safety. The recent Second Amendment decisions supersedes Miller, which was incorrectly applied by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Local political desires to limit citizen rights through bans of commonly used weapons are moot in this matter of guns, stun guns, clubs or what have you.

Yes it does do that. The commitment to state decisis among the liberal justices seems to have won out, let's see if that remains consistent.

 

[MickeyW]

Yes it does do that. The commitment to state decisis among the liberal justices seems to have won out, let's see if that remains consistent.

Rest assured, I will be paying close attention, as I have been doing since 1975. Guns and gun issues have been a big part of my life, as an avid gun owner, competition shooter, as a cop, as a hobby and now for the last 15 years, as part of my business.

 

[haymarket]

Probably nothing....but post # 18 might help.

In what way? What is post 18 suppose to prove?