Shocking Second Amendment decision!
Conservatives have been worried about the sanctity of the Second Amendment following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch gun rights advocate on the Supreme Court.
A decision released Monday, however, has been hailed a victory for gun rights, and conservatives everywhere will be relieved to see the court standing up for the Constitution even without Scalia.
The court overturned a decision out of Massachusetts that determined that stun guns were not covered by the Second Amendment, siding instead with a woman who said she carried one as protection against an abusive former boyfriend.
In an unsigned decision with no dissents, the country’s highest court ruled in favor of Jaime Caetano, who in 2011 was arrested for possession of a stun gun in violation of a state law banning such weapons. Caetano said she carried the stun gun for self-defense because her former partner was violent and abusive.
In March 2015, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the stun gun was not covered by the constitutional right to bear arms. The Supreme Court, however, decided that ruling was inconsistent with a 2008 Supreme Court decision declaring an individual right to bear arms.
The 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, had left open many questions about the extent of the individual right, the firearms covered and when government regulations would stand. Although the latest decision does not further clarify many of the case’s unanswered questions, it does require the Massachusetts court to hear it again in light of the 2008 decision. In doing so, it sent a message to lower courts that there is a broad range of weapons covered by the Second Amendment.
In a concurring opinion, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas wanted that message to be even stronger.
“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,” Alito wrote, according to USA Today.
Massachusetts, like liberals across the country, tried to argue that stun guns should not be protected because that type of weapon would not have been the type Congress envisioned in 1789 when it adopted the Second Amendment.