Caetano v. Massachusetts
136 S. Ct. 1027, 194 L. Ed. 2d 99, 84 U.S.L.W. 4133 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Second Amendment extends to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, including those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. A weapon cannot be banned on the grounds that it is a modern invention or not useful in warfare.
Facts:
- Jaime Caetano was in a physically abusive relationship that resulted in her hospitalization and homelessness.
- Despite obtaining multiple restraining orders against her ex-boyfriend, she continued to fear for her life.
- A friend gave Caetano a stun gun for self-defense.
- One night, her ex-boyfriend, who was significantly larger than her, confronted and threatened her outside her workplace.
- Caetano displayed the stun gun, stated she would use it if he did not leave, and her ex-boyfriend retreated.
- In a separate, unrelated incident, police were investigating a report of shoplifting and obtained Caetano's consent to search her purse.
- During the search, police discovered the stun gun, which Caetano stated she carried for protection against her ex-boyfriend.
Procedural Posture:
- Jaime Caetano was arrested and charged in a Massachusetts trial court for possessing a stun gun in violation of state law.
- Caetano filed a motion to dismiss the charge, arguing the law violated the Second Amendment, but the trial court denied the motion.
- Following a bench trial, the court found Caetano guilty of possessing an electrical weapon.
- Caetano appealed her conviction to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the Second Amendment does not protect stun guns.
- Caetano petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law that completely prohibits the possession of stun guns by civilians violate the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the Massachusetts law violates the Second Amendment. The court vacated the lower court's judgment because its reasoning for upholding the ban on stun guns was inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent established in District of Columbia v. Heller. The Massachusetts court made three errors: 1) It wrongly concluded that stun guns are unprotected because they were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment, directly contradicting Heller's holding that the amendment covers arms not in existence at the founding. 2) It improperly equated a weapon being 'unusual' with it being a modern invention, which is a circular argument inconsistent with Heller. 3) It incorrectly reasoned that stun guns lack protection because they are not 'readily adaptable to use in the military,' a proposition Heller explicitly rejected.
Concurring - Alito
Yes, the Massachusetts law violates the Second Amendment. The lower court's reasoning defied Heller at every step. The Second Amendment protects modern weapons like stun guns, just as the First and Fourth Amendments protect modern forms of communication and technology. The lower court misapplied the 'dangerous and unusual' test; a weapon is not unprotected merely because it is designed for defense, and stun guns are not 'unusual' just because they are modern. The pertinent inquiry is whether a weapon is in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today, and with hundreds of thousands owned across the country, stun guns meet this criterion. Denying Caetano, a vulnerable individual whom the state failed to protect, the right to a non-lethal weapon for self-defense poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self-defense.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and clarifies the Supreme Court's holding in District of Columbia v. Heller, making it clear that the Second Amendment's protections are not limited to 18th-century technology. By rejecting arguments based on a weapon's novelty or lack of military application, the Court signaled to lower courts that categorical bans on entire classes of modern, bearable arms that are in common use for self-defense are constitutionally suspect. This precedent strengthens protections for non-lethal weapons and ensures that the Second Amendment's scope evolves with technology, impacting future cases involving bans on other modern self-defense tools.
