Caetano v. Massachusetts - can it be used vs CA laws?

[T. Pratt]

I read about this decision a couple of days ago, and was delightfully surprised that ALL 8 justices ruled in favor of Caetano. So I'm thinking, how would this square with such California laws like 12020 CPC, and 653(k) CPC. The first law deals with such notable weapons such as clubs, Monkey fists, throwing stars, dirks and daggers, and the list goes on and on. The second law deals with switch blades.

Is there a lawyer in the house that can help me ferret out the answer?

[lowimpactuser]

I read about this decision a couple of days ago, and was delightfully surprised that ALL 8 justices ruled in favor of Caetano. So I'm thinking, how would this square with such California laws like 12020 CPC, and 653(k) CPC. The first law deals with such notable weapons such as clubs, Monkey fists, throwing stars, dirks and daggers, and the list goes on and on. The second law deals with switch blades.

Is there a lawyer in the house that can help me ferret out the answer?

No record that all 8 voted. There is no dissent, but it's factually inaccurate to say that all 8 did vote; it could be the dissenters felt their position would get short shrift and there was no point in writing a dissent.

Secondly, the stun gun is emphatically less lethal; but as characterized by the courts, is less THAN lethal (meaning always). AZ defines clubs as non-lethal weapons, but CA defines billys and sharps as lethal weapons, so unless a sympathetic panel heard this, they'd distinguish between a less than lethal and lethal or potentially lethal weapon.

The fight is not done.

Also, we CURRENTLY have a case where we're challenging the "concealed dirk" provision of CA law.

[T. Pratt]

It's a given that the second amendment covers deadly weapons, and now, according to the Supreme court, it also includes non-lethal weapons. So would separate and individual cases have to be brought to the Supreme court before a club, dagger, or switchblade, could be recognized nationally? That seems a bit silly to say the least

[lowimpactuser]

It's a given that the second amendment covers deadly weapons, and now, according to the Supreme court, it also includes non-lethal weapons. So would separate and individual cases have to be brought to the Supreme court before a club, dagger, or switchblade, could be recognized nationally? That seems a bit silly to say the least

Easily argued that the court applied an "as-applied" challenge, and found for the defendant. The circumstances, being homeless and carrying a non-lethal weapon, don't necessarily generalized; unless you're looking to carry non-lethal weapons as judged by CA and are willing to be homeless to do so.

If not, then there are reasonable court interpretations that differ and won't offer you protection.

The fact that people like you suddenly assume SCOTUS will hear more cases and clarify and protect this ruling is inane.

Heller-2008
McDonald-2010
Caetano-2016

Notice the gap that took 3x as long?

Reading your tea leaves that SCOTUS will suddenly protect and help us is inane. We hope they will, but trying to predict SCOTUS movement or seriousness on this issue is ridiculous until we have ANOTHER case, taken in rapid succession, that continues to defend the 2nd.

Otherwise, it's far smarter to believe they'll resume their old course of ignoring Jackson, Friedman, and the rest.

[Untamed1972]

Easily argued that the court applied an "as-applied" challenge, and found for the defendant. The circumstances, being homeless and carrying a non-lethal weapon, don't necessarily generalized; unless you're looking to carry non-lethal weapons as judged by CA and are willing to be homeless to do so.

If not, then there are reasonable court interpretations that differ and won't offer you protection.

The fact that people like you suddenly assume SCOTUS will hear more cases and clarify and protect this ruling is inane.

Heller-2008
McDonald-2010
Caetano-2016

Notice the gap that took 3x as long?

Reading your tea leaves that SCOTUS will suddenly protect and help us is inane. We hope they will, but trying to predict SCOTUS movement or seriousness on this issue is ridiculous until we have ANOTHER case, taken in rapid succession, that continues to defend the 2nd.

Otherwise, it's far smarter to believe they'll resume their old course of ignoring Jackson, Friedman, and the rest.

A SCOTUS ruling however is primarily intended to be instructive to the lower courts on how to handle subsequent cases. That's why a single SCOTUS ruling is so important. The problem is the lower courts have been ignoring Heller/McD. If they hadn't been ignoring those rulings there would have been ALOT of cases to point to. SCOTUS is the only court that can decide what cases to take. The lower courts do not have that discretion. They have to take ALL cases brought to them, and they're supposed to follow SCOTUS rulings in how they judge them.

So perhaps what the OP is really asking is: "When other suits are eventually brought against the other stupid CA laws, will the lower courts properly apply this latest ruling?"

And my answer would be....it would be nice if they would, but they clearly up till now have had no reservations about ignoring Heller, so why would they change now. But at least this ruling did further define to strengthen some of the vague language in Heller the lower courts have exploiting, so at least it there is a little less wiggle room now to just make crap up, especially the "modern arms in common use" do not meet the definition of "dangerous AND unusual", and seems to address bearing of arms in public.

[lowimpactuser]

A SCOTUS ruling however is primarily intended to be instructive to the lower courts on how to handle subsequent cases. That's why a single SCOTUS ruling is so important. The problem is the lower courts have been ignoring Heller/McD. If they hadn't been ignoring those rulings there would have been ALOT of cases to point to. SCOTUS is the only court that can decide what cases to take. The lower courts do not have that discretion. They have to take ALL cases brought to them, and they're supposed to follow SCOTUS rulings in how they judge them.

So perhaps what the OP is really asking is: "When other suits are eventually brought against the other stupid CA laws, will the lower courts properly apply this latest ruling?"

And my answer would be....it would be nice if they would, but they clearly up till now have had no reservations about ignoring Heller, so why would they change now.

Exactly.

The best predictor of future performance is past performance.

[Untamed1972]

I like how they also touched on "entire class of arms". Hopefully that will help with things like the roster and AW bans. A semi-auto rifle is just that, as is a semi-auto handgun. Their can't be picking and choosing within that class which are ok and which aren't.

Seems like the same would go for knives.....again one of the oldest weapons known to man, so even under the "only weapons around at the founding area are protected" they would still meet that requirement. So to me....a knife is a knife, is a knife. Doesn't mater how big or small it is, single or double edged, folding or fixed, spring loaded or not. They're all still knives, so they should all be protected.

[Didymus]

No record that all 8 voted. There is no dissent, but it's factually inaccurate to say that all 8 did vote; it could be the dissenters felt their position would get short shrift and there was no point in writing a dissent.

You've stated this in the other Caetano thread, but your assertion needs more context. If you would like a qualification of unanimous as "in effect" I can agree to that. However...

All evidence to this per curiam decision points to unanimity. KC Brown also pointed that out.

Here is a statement on the case from Scotusblog:

Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor were not on the Court when it decided the Heller case eight years ago, but Sotomayor was among the dissenters when it decided the McDonald case in 2010. Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in both cases. There was no indication Monday that any of those four had dissented from the unsigned opinion in Caetano. Neither was there any such indication from Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., or Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. The vote thus may have been, in effect, unanimous, since Alito and Thomas joined only the result, not the Court opinion. (http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/th...e-not-by-much/)


For others who would like to know more about per curiam. Here is a link to Cornell's Legal Information Institute which defines per curiam.

per curiam

Here is another link from the independent journal, speaking about the "shocking unanimous decision."

Independent Journal Review

Notice also, if the per curiam decision was not unanimous, there would be in all probability a dissent. Yes, we don't have a vote to view, however that doesn't lessen the balance of past precedent nor the judgment of legal scholars measured with the Court's own per curiam opinion that the majority opinion is less than eight.

Additionally, in per curiam decisions there needs not be a concurring opinion, however in this case J. Alito and J. Thomas issue a driving concurrence. A foretiori, in light of this ringing concurring opinion, do you really think that one of the Heller dissent or Kagan/Sotomayor would not respond to such an opinion if they disagreed with the per curiam opinion of which is functionally issued in their name? To claim operational "short shrift" would be a stain on their record. The dissent in Bush v Gore was apoplectic in their dissent. I find the affirmative answer to be unconvincing due to the very least, the nature ambitious humans. We aren't referring to a disagreement in a gun forum.

In the immortal words of Hillary Rodham Clinton, "What difference does this make?" In other words how will this affect a future 2A vote? I have no idea.

However, as I said in the previous thread, the per curiam, in effect, unanimous opinion (there you go ), is still "shocking" and does SEEM TO indicate at least ONE provision of McDonald and Heller is intact after Scalia's death. That is, that United States courts cannot use the language of Heller as a wedge to limit AR-15's and semi-automatic pistols because they were not in use during the 18th century.

Eugene Volokh does a good job of summing this opinion. (And again he uses the term unanimous without qualification.)

The Volokh Conspiracy

[sfpcservice]

I'm wondering if this ruling could be used as a means to get clubs, daggars, or batons able to be listed on a CCW just like a pistol. We can market this to Californians because far more people would be interested in carrying these and in turn could make them more supportive of the 2nd if those weapons were part of it...

[wireless]

I'm curious if this would be helpful in Pena?...

[lowimpactuser]

I'm wondering if this ruling could be used as a means to get clubs, daggars, or batons able to be listed on a CCW just like a pistol. We can market this to Californians because far more people would be interested in carrying these and in turn could make them more supportive of the 2nd if those weapons were part of it...

Good luck.

They'll call clubs, batons, daggers, and the rest "deadly weapons" as distinct from "non-lethal" weapons, though these definitions are completely subjective.

Expandable batons are non-lethal force, or less-lethal force in AZ.

If it's california courts, they'll distinguish the hell out of the case, so nothing is useful to us in actually useful defense weapons.

[bruss01]

If we want to go out on a limb (sometimes "the truth is out there") we could imagine that the Supreme Court has not taken a 2A case in the last six years despite multiple opportunities because they have been instructed not to.

Read on if you still think there are unanswered questions about Bigfoot, 911 and the Kennedy assassination.

So you've built the worlds biggest surveilance network... where's the fun if you can't use it to steer things the way they ought to go? You can manipulate just about anybody if you know enough about them and their families and their peers, predelictions and business associates. Well, almost anybody that is. A few (Scalia? We'll never know) may need more direct and personal handling. So the court has been turning down obvious gun cases under "pressure" to let the issue die. Only this little "battered woman with a violent ex and a stun-gun" slipped under the radar - because it's not a "firearms" case. When they voted on it, just to be safe, not everyone voted and no voting record was kept, so they could each claim plausible deniability. And how did they strike back at their tormentor? With the strongest and least equvocal ruling yet - virtually any weapon you can carry is protected by the 2nd amendment outside the home. That's pretty solid. Almost like they know the time is getting close when people may have to use them in order to keep them, if this carnival ride gets any wilder. Then you have Alito and Thomas, like John Hancock on the D of I, writing their names large saying "You got Scalia, you wanna try for me too? Here I am!" Almost daring them to stage a heart attack or car wreck or a suicide - pretty obvious at that point, the jig would almost certainly be up.

Fantasy? Almost certainly. Would make for a great movie hmm? But if it's not? This might be the last we hear from them on the subject for a looong time.

[lowimpactuser]

If we want to go out on a limb (sometimes "the truth is out there") we could imagine that the Supreme Court has not taken a 2A case in the last six years despite multiple opportunities because they have been instructed not to.

Read on if you still think there are unanswered questions about Bigfoot, 911 and the Kennedy assassination.

So you've built the worlds biggest surveilance network... where's the fun if you can't use it to steer things the way they ought to go? You can manipulate just about anybody if you know enough about them and their families and their peers, predelictions and business associates. Well, almost anybody that is. A few (Scalia? We'll never know) may need more direct and personal handling. So the court has been turning down obvious gun cases under "pressure" to let the issue die. Only this little "battered woman with a violent ex and a stun-gun" slipped under the radar - because it's not a "firearms" case. When they voted on it, just to be safe, not everyone voted and no voting record was kept, so they could each claim plausible deniability. And how did they strike back at their tormentor? With the strongest and least equvocal ruling yet - virtually any weapon you can carry is protected by the 2nd amendment outside the home. That's pretty solid. Almost like they know the time is getting close when people may have to use them in order to keep them, if this carnival ride gets any wilder. Then you have Alito and Thomas, like John Hancock on the D of I, writing their names large saying "You got Scalia, you wanna try for me too? Here I am!" Almost daring them to stage a heart attack or car wreck or a suicide - pretty obvious at that point, the jig would almost certainly be up.

Fantasy? Almost certainly. Would make for a great movie hmm? But if it's not? This might be the last we hear from them on the subject for a looong time.

Lol. Keep writing your fiction.

It was per curiam, and a vacate, not a reversal and remand, so the spanking wasn't as bad as they could have made it; and Alito wrote such in his concurrence.

They could have gone further and actually wrote the 2nd applies outside the home. They didn't.

The plaintiff appealed to the libs, so they voted "grudgingly" according to Alito.

[Untamed1972]

If we want to go out on a limb (sometimes "the truth is out there") we could imagine that the Supreme Court has not taken a 2A case in the last six years despite multiple opportunities because they have been instructed not to.

Read on if you still think there are unanswered questions about Bigfoot, 911 and the Kennedy assassination.

So you've built the worlds biggest surveilance network... where's the fun if you can't use it to steer things the way they ought to go? You can manipulate just about anybody if you know enough about them and their families and their peers, predelictions and business associates. Well, almost anybody that is. A few (Scalia? We'll never know) may need more direct and personal handling. So the court has been turning down obvious gun cases under "pressure" to let the issue die. Only this little "battered woman with a violent ex and a stun-gun" slipped under the radar - because it's not a "firearms" case. When they voted on it, just to be safe, not everyone voted and no voting record was kept, so they could each claim plausible deniability. And how did they strike back at their tormentor? With the strongest and least equvocal ruling yet - virtually any weapon you can carry is protected by the 2nd amendment outside the home. That's pretty solid. Almost like they know the time is getting close when people may have to use them in order to keep them, if this carnival ride gets any wilder. Then you have Alito and Thomas, like John Hancock on the D of I, writing their names large saying "You got Scalia, you wanna try for me too? Here I am!" Almost daring them to stage a heart attack or car wreck or a suicide - pretty obvious at that point, the jig would almost certainly be up.

Fantasy? Almost certainly. Would make for a great movie hmm? But if it's not? This might be the last we hear from them on the subject for a looong time.

I LIKE IT!!! Sounds like a good follow-up movie/novel to "The Pelican Brief"

[lowimpactuser]

You've stated this in the other Caetano thread, but your assertion needs more context. If you would like a qualification of unanimous as "in effect" I can agree to that. However...

I'll take "seemingly"! I think it's even likely unanimous! But people here are bad at math and logic, and they take the seemingly unanimous opinion for granted that it IS unanimous, and proclaim the end of gun laws because Ruth Bader Ginsburg likes the 2nd amendment now!

For adults that can separate WANTS from FACTS, then sure, call it unanimous. But given the irrational speculation and hope and supposition here, it's important to be strictly accurate, because everyone else is so amazingly inaccurate.

All evidence to this per curiam decision points to unanimity. KC Brown also pointed that out.

Also, thanks for the Volokh link! Very useful!