A woman in Massachusetts who uses a stun gun to fend off an ex-boyfriend whose last brutal attack put her in the hospital, is arrested and convicted of possessing an illegal weapon.
I remember when the very first Taser was debuted in Guns and Ammo magazine in the late 70’s. It was heralded as a non-lethal replacement for firearms. Now people that lived where guns had been regulated out of existence would have a way to defend themselves. But it didn’t work out that way.
Fast forward to today. Since Tasers and other stun gun type devices were not considered firearms, they could be legally banned without violating the 2nd Amendment. And five States chose to do so – Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York & Rhode Island.
So, a non-lethal alternate to firearms is invented and five Liberal States ban their possession. Not heavily regulate their possession like firearms, but an outright ban!
But this appears to be about to change due to a recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Caetano vs. Massachusetts.
Jaime Caetano, a Massachusetts woman, suffered a brutal beating at the hands of her abusive boyfriend. She obtained numerous restraining orders against her abuser, but they did not keep him from terrorizing her. A friend loaned her a stun gun to defend herself. The next time the violent ex-boyfriend payed her a visit, she stood her ground, displayed the stun gun, he got scared and left.
While the police were taking the report of yet another restraining order violation, they discovered she had the stun gun in her possession which violates State law. She was arrested, tried and found guilty of possession of an illegal stun gun. The fact that the former boyfriend had already put her in the hospital once was considered irrelevant. The fact that the former boyfriend out-weighed her by 100 pounds was considered irrelevant. The fact that she didn’t use the stun gun on the former boyfriend, but merely displayed it, was considered irrelevant. The only fact considered was she had a stun gun in her possession. The prescribed punishment for this crime: Up to $1000 fine and/or up to 2 ½ years in prison.
The police were unable to stop the violent boyfriend from multiple violations of restraining orders, but arrested Ms. Caetano for possession of the stun gun which may have saved her life. We should note that the first time the boyfriend attacked her she ended up in the hospital with multiple injuries.
Could you please explain to me this Liberal belief that it is somehow morally superior to allow Ms. Caetano to be beaten senseless and terrorized by her ex-boyfriend than to allow her to defend herself with a non-lethal device?
But there is hope for the return of common sense.
Ms. Caetano appealed her conviction based on the 2nd Amendment. The Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld the conviction saying stun guns were not protected by the 2nd Amendment because they were not firearms. The case moved on to the U.S. Supreme Court which chose to accept the case.
After hearing arguments on the case, the Supreme Court ruling determined:
- The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of self-defense not just arms ownership.
- The 2nd Amendment extends protection to all means of self-protection.
- The protection includes weapons that didn’t exist in 1791, i.e. stun guns.
- The issue of how dangerous a weapon is does not apply when it is used for a lawful purpose.
- Keeping arms for self-defense is a fundamental right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
- One person’s reservation about using deadly force for self-defense does not trump or override another person’s right to do so.
It seems pretty clear to me. People don’t have to cower in fear and be terrorized by someone larger and more brutal because the means of their self-defense is illegal to possess.
They are also saying what I have said for years: It’s not the gun that’s illegal; it’s the act it is used in. Use it for self-defense, legal. Use it to rob a bank, illegal.
The last item above reminds me of a quote I’ve used before: Conservatives who don’t like guns don’t buy them. Liberals who don’t like guns don’t want anybody to have them (except maybe their bodyguards, i.e. Michael Bloomberg).
A more detailed explanation of the Supreme Court ruling can be found here: