The last direct action by the United States Supreme Court on the Second Amendment was the decision of Caetano v. Massachusetts. The case was decided in 2016. The Court unanimously held, in the Caetano PER CURIAM decision (pdf), that:
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).The case was about a Massachusetts State law that banned the possession of electric weapons, including stun guns. The Supreme Court did not directly invalidate the Massachusetts ban. It held that the Massachusetts Supreme Court was wrong when it found that electric weapons were not protected by the Second Amendment.
After the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the defendant in the case, Jaime Caetano, was formally found not guilty. The judge agreed to allow her record to be sealed, so that it would not show on a record check by a potential employer or other person. The Massachusetts ban remained on the books.
A federal lawsuit has been filed against Massachusetts AG Maura Healy, challenging the constitutionality of the stun gun ban. The lawsuit was filed on February 16, 2017. Here is the demand for judgment at the end of the complaint document
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs request this Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant as follows:
1. A declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201, that Section 131J violates the United States Constitution and laws of the United States, specifically, the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. §1983;
2. An order permanently enjoining Defendant, her officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from enforcing Section 131J, and any custom, policy, or practice of prosecuting individuals for sale, possession, or lawful use of an electrical weapon;
3. Attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, 28 U.S.C. §1920, and any other appropriate authority; and
4. Any other further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
The Caetano case was about electric weapons. There are a number of States and local governments that have universal bans on electric weapons. Howard County, Maryland, is one of them. A lawsuit has been filed against Howard County as well.The Howard County Council is scheduled to vote on the repeal of the ban on Tuesday, 21 February. The Howard County Police Chief has stated the police department does not enforce the ban.
The Maryland case is the latest in a string of lawsuits Second Amendment supporters have enjoyed using the Caetano decision. Such lawsuits have had success in New Jersey, New Orleans, and the District of Columbia. Another lawsuit is being pursued in New York State.
It is difficult to argue that stun guns should be banned when the laws allow for possession of handguns. AG Maura Healy has already taken extreme actions to ban certain guns in Massachusetts. Gun owners in the state consider her to be hostile to the Second Amendment.
Internet searches have not revealed legal challenges to similar bans in Hawaii and Rhode Island.
©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Why have the not included the violation of the tenth amendment? What ever the supreme court of the united States rules effects all states, possessions and territories. If it is unconstitutional in one state it is unconstitutional in all states. when the supreme court strikes down a bad law in one state that same kind of law is unconstitutional in all states there is no need for every state to file a suit for the same kind of law. the supreme court has now ruled that electronic weapons are legal under the second amendment it has also ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. so why is no body bringing up the tenth amendment making it clear that the second amendment as written must be enforced nationally? States have no authority to write laws that add anything to the second amendment. In fact the ruling that states weapons that did not exist when the constitution was written physically destroys all of the gun control acts of congress. the supreme court has made the ruling that anything that can be used as a weapon is protected under the second amendment. so how long will it take to put two and two together and come up with the fact that all of these infringing laws are void. find any of the infringing law words in the second amendment. You will not find gun safe, machine gun, trigger lock, magazine capacity, permit, license or any of the other words in the entire constitution let alone in the 26 words contained in the second amendment. there is no definition in the constitution for the word weapon and no one has the authority to define weapon. weapons that did not exist when the constitution was written covers an awful lot of weapons. for instance the California ban on several kinds of weapons is now null and void. the same kinds of laws are now null and void in all states. Understand the big picture. these recent supreme court rulings are very wide sweeping decisions. since no body can define what a weapon is then a term like machine gun is not allowed. Whether they like it or not these recent ruling when you add them all together have destroyed the 1934 NFA and the 1968 and the 1986 CGAs. when the court rules the states can not define weapons is has maybe inadvertently said congress can not define them either.
ReplyDeleteIt has taken many decades to get all of these supreme court rulings, now put them all together and see what they collectively say. the laws may be on the books but they are unenforceable.
ReplyDeletethe laws on the books do not have to be repealed because the court has nullified them.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible tells us God said "my people suffer from lack of knowledge" Gun owners that will not read the laws and understand them are truly suffering.
ReplyDeleteTo: 'Anonymous', 2/18/2017 02:28:00 PM:
ReplyDeleteNot in New Jersey!
In 'Nazi Jerzey', laws remain on the books, enforceable - AND CONTINUE TO BE ENFORCED - regardless of ANY court decisions. Until, and unless, an ordinance/law/rule/regulation/whatchamacallit is specifically and deliberately removed by the governing body having jurisdiction, the NJ State Constitution says it will be that way.
NJ is a Freedom/Liberty-Lover's Hell. I expatriated from there, hence my handle. Why do you think I got out of there?
For more background, refer to John Paff, Chairman of New Jersey Libertarian Party's Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project:
http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/
To: "Anonymous, 2/18/2017 02:28:00 PM":
ReplyDeleteNot in New Jersey!
In 'Nazi Jerzey', laws remain on the books, enforceable - AND CONTINUE TO BE ENFORCED - regardless of ANY court decisions. Until, and unless, an ordinance/law/rule/regulation/whatchamacallit is specifically and deliberately removed by the governing body having jurisdiction, the NJ State Constitution says it will be that way.
NJ is a Freedom/Liberty-Lover's Hell. I expatriated from there, hence my handle. Why do you think I got out of there?
For more background, refer to John Paff, Chairman of New Jersey Libertarian Party's Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project:
http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/
If I were in New Jersey I would be filing one civil rights violation after another using the Gibbons v Ogden case from the supreme court in 1824. when the supreme court makes a ruling it must be followed by every state. as the ruling reads " when a state law conflicts with a federal law the federal law is supreme. a few dozen law suits for the cap of 15 million dollars might wake up the new jersey legislators. states ignoring federal law are violating your constitutional rights. supreme court rulings verify federal law. the effect of the tenth amendment mandates compliance. federal law is always superior to state law by the separation of powers. the more informed gun owners are the better they can demand their rights. when they know the laws better they just might be a little more well to do. Most people can use an extra 15 million dollars. I personally know a couple that recovered 2.3 million dollars when they sued New Mexico because of a corrupt judge. I think they sued over the wrong issue but they won their case. tax free
ReplyDeleteIf I had the time and the interest I would get the NJ constitution and challenge this issue. As has been stated the united states constitution IS the supreme law of this land and the proper enforcement of the tenth amendment makes that part of the NJ constitution null and void. the state of NJ has no recourse it must comply with supreme court rulings. It could be turned into a federally monitored territory and loose its state hood. all it would take is a case titled United States Government v. The state of New Jersey. For criminal violation of the mandates of the tenth amendment. think this cant happen, take a few minutes and laugh your ass off? then think about the power of the federal constitution.
ReplyDelete