Overview: Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016)
Jaime Caetano, a Massachusetts
resident, dealt with repeated domestic abuse from a former boyfriend, which led
her to obtain multiple restraining orders. Despite those restraining orders,
she felt unsafe. She obtained a stun gun[1], which is an electronic
weapon that can offer a measure of protection without lethal force. In 2011,
Caetano was approached by law enforcement officers at a supermarket. The
officers found the stun gun and arrested her for possession of a stun gun based
on a Massachusetts statute[2] that forbids possession of
stun guns within the state. She asserted that was carrying the stun gun only
for self-defense purposes but she was still arrested and charged.
Caetano was convicted of that
charge and subsequently appealed the conviction. The Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court upheld the conviction with the reasoning that stun guns do not
have any protection under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution[3]. The court noted that stun
guns were not common during the founding era, so they were not allowed any
protections under the Second Amendment. It also noted that stun guns were
“dangerous per se,” which suggests that stun guns are inherently more harmful
than what is considered an acceptable form of self-defense in the state.
Finally, it found that stun guns are not considered “arms” under the Second
Amendment because they cannot be readily adapted for military usage. Caetano
appealed that decision.
The Supreme Court heard Caetano v.
Massachusetts[4],
which is a pivotal case that reaffirmed the meaning of the Second Amendment. It
expanded the scope of the amendment in a way that upholds the nature of the
amendment and modernizes it to reflect the non-lethal weapons that are
currently available for self-defense in the United States. In its opinion, the
U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the decision of the Massachusetts court
in a brief per curiam opinion, which means that the document is speaking on
behalf of the court instead of speaking for specific justices.
The U.S. Supreme Court cited
District of Columbia v. Heller[5], which was a case that led
to the opinion that under the Second Amendment, individuals have a right to
possess firearms that are not connected to militia service. Those firearms can
be used for lawful purposes, which includes self-defense within the home.
Heller also set the precedent that Second Amendment protections are extended to
all bearable arms, not to only the ones that were in existence when the Second
Amendment was created. Based on that case and the nature of the Second
Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the reasoning of the lower court
was inconsistent with the precedent set by Heller.
In Heller and Caetano, the U.S.
Supreme Court reaffirmed that just because a weapon did not exist in the 18th
century does not mean that it is not protected. It also noted that classifying
a weapon as “unusual” because it does not have a military origin or was not
used in the 1700s does not uphold the intent of the Amendment. The focus on the
protection of a specific weapon must be on whether it is commonly used for
lawful purposes, such as self-defense. This opinion reaffirms that laws must
protect weapons in a manner that keeps up with technological advancements and
the greater needs of society.
Justice Samuel Alito issued a
concurring opinion. He was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. The opinion
expressed deep concern and the state’s action. It argued the Massachusetts
essentially opted to criminalize a vulnerable woman’s attempt to use a nonlethal
weapon for self-protection. The pointed stance criticized the decision to
ignore the protections and intent of the Second Amendment. Justice Alito noted
that the woman’s decision to carry a stun gun was necessary after other legal
mechanisms failed to protect her. He argued that denying access to weapons like
stun guns undermines the primary purpose of Second Amendment protections.