Supreme Court Overturns Stun Gun Ban in Commonwealth v Caetano

In Commonwealth v Caetano, 577 U. S. ____ (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Massachusetts court’s proffered reasons for upholding a ban on personal possession or use of a “stun gun” contradicted the Court’s prior Second Amendment holdings. The Court issued a unanimous per curium opinion.

To protect herself from an abusive ex-boyfriend, Jaime Caetano accepted a stun gun from a friend. One night after leaving work, Caetano found her ex-boyfriend waiting for her outside. She displayed the stun gun, and she told her ex-boyfriend that she was prepared to use it if he did not leave her alone. He got scared and left.

Under Massachusetts law, Caetano’s possession of the stun gun was illegal. When police later discovered the weapon, she was arrested, tried, and convicted. The Massachusetts Su­preme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction, holding that a stun gun “is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment’s] enactment.”

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Massachusetts court and remanded the case for further proceedings. In its decision, the Supreme Court rejected the three explanations provided by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. According to the Court, the Massachusetts court failed to properly apply its ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008).

With regard to the argument that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the Supreme Court held that the reasoning is inconsistent with the Court’s clear statement in Heller that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

The Supreme Court also rejected the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s holding that stun guns may be banned as “dangerous and unusual weapons.” As explained in the Court’s per curium opinion: “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.”

Finally, the Court dismissed the Massachusetts court’s finding that “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” As highlighted by the justices, Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.”

Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. The concurring justices argued that the Massachusetts stun gun law was outright unconstitutional and, therefore, the case need not be remanded. “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,” Justice Alito wrote.