LOCATION: Ashland, Massachusetts
DOCKET NO.: 14-10078
DECIDED BY: Roberts Court (2016- )
LOWER COURT: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
CITATION: 577 US (2016)
GRANTED: Mar 21, 2016
DECIDED: Mar 21, 2016
Facts of the case
Jaime Caetano was accused with using the illegal type of gun in self-defense purpose against ex-boyfriend, who threaten to her health and life. Under the Massachusetts Supreme Court opinion such type of stun gun applied by the defendant was illegal for a possession under the legislation of the state.
The judgments was based on the opinion that it was not referred to allowed weapons for person`s protection in dangerous situations according to the Second Amendment and didn`t exist in time when this act had been accepted. Caetano claimed on this court`s ruling to the USA Supreme Court.
It changed the previous rulings because according to mentioned constitutional changes the weapons that were not produced at the time of its approval is also lawful for protection rights in all states. The case study explains that the higher Court canceled the decision because it was controversial to prior rulings of such precedents as District of Columbia v. Heller and of McDonald v. City of Chicago.
Firstly, under the Heller`s order, the Second Amendment made the using of weapons not existed yet legitimate. Secondly, according to the case brief of Heller the stun guns cannot be recognized as dangerous or unusual and prohibited. The thirdly, the Massachusetts conclusion that stated only military weapons were allowed under the Second Amendment to personal protection was inappropriate to the precedent on Heller.
The Supreme Court canceled Massachusetts judgments regarding Caetano v. Massachusetts whereas it contradicted with the previous precedent of prior force and violated the fundamental human right for defense in conditions that threat person health and life.
Does the Second Amendment protect the right to possess a stun gun for self-defense?