SCOTUS 2A Decision Outside Home Carry

[SA-TX]

Read the decision here

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15 ... 8_aplc.pdf

It involves a stun gun not a firearm but it is per curium , decided squarely on 2A grounds, for carry outside the home and the concurrence by Thomas and Alito quite pointed at the court below.

The decision overturns a decision by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that upheld the conviction of an abused women (who had restraining orders on an ex) when it was found in her car. MA law apparently banned them categorically and the decision says this contravenes Heller and deprives her of her choice of a self-defense tool.

The fact that this is a less-popular choice than a firearm was, interestingly, used by the MA court in upholding her conviction (supposedly positing that she SHOULD have turned to a firearm) but the Court reiterated their prior statements and concluded that a stun gun most certainly enjoys 2A protection.

What does this mean for handguns? Someone much more qualified than I needs to answer this. At a minimum, it seems to focus on the "bear" instead of the "keep" part of "keep and bear arms" which Heller did not, so this seems to be a positive development.

SA-TX

[SA-TX]

Read the decision here

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15 ... 8_aplc.pdf

It involves a stun gun not a firearm but it is per curium , decided squarely on 2A grounds, for carry outside the home and the concurrence by Thomas and Alito quite pointed at the court below.

The decision overturns a decision by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that upheld the conviction of an abused women (who had restraining orders on an ex) when it was found in her car. MA law apparently banned them categorically and the decision says this contravenes Heller and deprives her of her choice of a self-defense tool.

The fact that this is a less-popular choice than a firearm was, interestingly, used by the MA court in upholding her conviction (supposedly positing that she SHOULD have turned to a firearm) but the Court reiterated their prior statements and concluded that a stun gun most certainly enjoys 2A protection.

What does this mean for handguns? Someone much more qualified than I needs to answer this. At a minimum, it seems to focus on the "bear" instead of the "keep" part of "keep and bear arms" which Heller did not, so this seems to be a positive development.

SA-TX

[KLB]

What does this mean for handguns?

It's good news in several respects, but especially in the midst of the cultural war we are in, no battle win is ever permanent. Everything is always at risk.

[SA-TX]

Tried to edit and accidentally double posted.

Any admin, please delete if you wish.

[ELB]

... for carry outside the home
... At a minimum, it seems to focus on the "bear" instead of the "keep" part of "keep and bear arms" ...
SA-TX

I doubt I am more qualified than you, but I don't think this decision addresses anything about "bearing" and/or "outside the home."

It deals strictly with whether stun guns are protected by the 2A. The SCOTUS answer is "yes they are."

That is the significant part. All eight justices concurred on this with the following statement:

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).

It ain't just about muskets.

But the SCOTUS has not yet, as of this decision, ruled on whether bearing arms outside the home for self-defense or other purposes is protected by the 2A. Scalito and Thomas wrote a separate opinion that more vigorously praises the right of self-defense, but it doesn't expand the decision to carry of arms outside the home.

The gist of this decision is
- Just because it didn't exist at the time the 2A was adopted doesn't mean it's not protected
- Just because it's not a military weapon (the old "2A is for militias") doesn't mean it's not protected.

It will be interesting to see this applied to knives, clubs, and other non-firearm arms...

[ELB]

Eugene Volokh helped write a friend of the court brief for this case. He has some thoughts on the decision here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... eme-court/

He notes that the SCOTUS did not rule that a ban on stun guns is outright unconstitutional -- it just ruled that the reasoning for upholding the ban by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was constitutionally invalid, and sent the case back. This leaves open the door that the MA court may find other reasons to support the ban that are constitutionally valid.