Case Essay: Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016)
Case Citation: Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577
U.S. 411 (2016).
Parties: Jaime Caetano,
Petitioner
Massachusetts,
Respondent
Facts: 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 because she was still being harassed by the
former boyfriend. She obtained a stun gun, 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, at which time the
officers found the stun gun. She was arrested for the possession of a stun gun
based on a Massachusetts statute[1]
that forbids possession of stun guns within the state.
Procedural History: Caetano
was convicted for possessing a stun gun, despite her assertion that she only
carried the stun gun for self-defense purposes. She appealed the conviction.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the conviction with the
reasoning that stun guns do not have protection under the Second Amendment of
the United States Constitution[2].
The court noted that stun guns were not common during the founding era, so they
were not allowed any protections under the amendment. It also noted that stun
guns are “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.
Issue: Does a state law banning all
stun gun possession violate rights provided by the Second Amendment of the
United States Constitution?
Holding: Yes. The United
States Supreme Court reversed the Massachusetts court’s decision, ruling that
the state’s blanket ban on stun guns violates the rights provided by the Second
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Reasoning: The United States
Supreme Court cited District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)[3],
which was a pivotal 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.
Decision: Justice Samuel
Alito issued a concurring opinion[4].
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.
Comment: 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.