By not accepting the notion “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment” (albeit applied to non-lethal weapons), the court certainly has taken a broad set of weapons out of contention for banning (“assault weapons” being the obvious one).
Interesting to my alleged mind is this commandment paired with the court denying “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” This opens the other end of the spectrum, for weapons not of military design/influence. It would, on the surface, seem like the world of private weaponry is wide open. What I want to see if what in-motion litigation is now withdrawn given the per curiam opinion. Guy Smith <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] www.linkedin.com/in/gunfacts/ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg Jacobs Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 2:24 PM To: Firearms Law List <[email protected]> Subject: Caetano v. Massachusetts So, query, is this case not just a slam at the Massachusetts Supreme Court but at 8 to nothing does it have far reaching Second Amendment broadening, completely eviscerating a host of arguments from the anti-gun/anti-weapons side of the room or am I just a cock-eyed optimist who sees a monumental shift where none exists? ***GRJ*** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/21/supreme-court-zaps-massachusetts-stun-gun-opinion/
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
