This week, you will resubmit your Week 4 Case Essay after you have made the changes and edits based my feedback comments that I returned to you for your Week 4 assignment. Making these kinds of edits

Caetano v. Massachusetts: A Landmark Second Amendment Case

Jordan Ogden

American Military University

December 1, 2024

Caetano v. Massachusetts: A Landmark Second Amendment Case

Introduction

The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America protects the right to own and carry firearms, however, this protection remains debatable. The Caetano v. United States Supreme Court case is a recent decision on the constitutionality of the Lautenberg Amendment. Second Amendment: United States v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) deals with whether the right to bear arms applies to a modern weapon. This stun gun was not available at the time the Constitution was being written. Jaime Caetano was arrested and convicted under the above prohibition on stun guns in Massachusetts; this led to arising issues on Second Amendment protections. This essay evaluates the facts, problems, decisions, rationales, and implications of the case, especially about self-defense rights and current constitutional law.

Facts of the Case

Jaime Caetano, a domestic violence victim, was left homeless and in fear despite the issuance of multiple restraining orders against her ex-boyfriend (Jaime Caetano, 577 U.S. ___). To protect herself, she took a stun gun from a friend. One day, her former boyfriend followed her to her workplace and started intimidating her, standing over her. Caetano pulled out the stun gun and told him to stay away from her, and she was able to make him run without having to use the device (Id.). However, Massachusetts law prohibited the possession of stun guns, which resulted in Caetano's arrest and conviction. She appealed, stating that the Massachusetts statute infringed on her Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Legal Issues

The case presented two pivotal questions:

1. In our case scenario, does the Massachusetts law prohibiting the ownership of stun guns violate the Second Amendment?

2. Is possession of Stun guns protected under the Second Amendment even if these weapons were not in existence during the time the Constitution was written?

The Court’s Holding and Reasoning

The Supreme Court reversed the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision and remanded the case to it (Id. at ___). The per curiam opinion stated that the Massachusetts court erred in disregarding established Second Amendment cases, particularly District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

1. Modern Arms are Protected: The Massachusetts court's rationale was that at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, stun guns were not popular. The Supreme Court dismissed this rationale and reiterated that Heller has anchored the Second Amendment right to bear arms that were not only practical during the 18th century (Heller, 554 U.S. at 582).

2. Dangerous and Unusual Weapons: The Massachusetts court also asserted that stun guns could be prohibited under the Second Amendment as “dangerous and unusual weapons.” However, the Supreme Court pointed out that only weapons that are both dangerous and unusual cannot be protected. Since stun guns are accessible and used lawfully as a protective tool, they do not fit this criterion (Caetano, 577 U.S. at ___).

3. Military Utility: The Massachusetts court also stated that stun guns are not fit for military purposes. The Supreme Court dismissed this as irrelevant, pointing out that military utility is not a requirement for receiving Second Amendment protection (Id.).

Concurring Opinion

Justice Alito, with Justice Thomas concurring, agreed with the judgment and provided a strongly worded evaluation of Massachusetts’ conduct in the case (Id. at ___, Alito, J., concurring). Justice Alito also pointed out that Caetano’s use of a stun gun constituted a proper and legal assertion of her Second Amendment rights, especially given the ineffectiveness of restraining orders. He criticized the Massachusetts law for criminalizing a weapon that had a very minimal possibility of causing grievous harm to another person as compared to the amount of force carried by a firearm (Id.). Alito also commented that constitutional rights cannot be static and must adapt to the existence of new tools and technologies as the First Amendment does with electronic communications (Id. at ___).

Significance of the Case

The Caetano decision made it clear that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution would protect modern weapons, including non-lethal weapons such as stun guns. It emphasized that constitutional rights cannot be restricted in any way, shape, or form by having them defined according to archaic concepts in technology or usage (Heller, 554 U.S. at 582). In addition, the case emphasized the significance of self-defense rights for individuals at risk, such as the victims of domestic abuse (Caetano, 577 U.S. at ___, Alito, J., concurring). Through rejecting the Massachusetts court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court also erected a procedural barrier to states’ efforts to categorically outlaw certain types of guns without adequate rationalizations (Id.).

Conclusion

Caetano v. Massachusetts decision is a turning point in the Second Amendment as it relates to technological advances and individual rights. Thus, not only did the Court uphold Jaime Caetano’s right to self-defense, but it also affirmed that the Constitution protects new technologies for lawful uses. In this case, one is reminded of the role of the judiciary in safeguarding rights as fundamental and relevant in modern society.

References

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016).

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

People v. Yanna, 297 Mich. App. 137, 824 N.W.2d 241 (2012).

Eugene Volokh, Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights To Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 199 (2009).