The Day that “You can only own muskets” died a shameful death.

It wasn’t even close or far: unanimous court decision. 8-0 vote.

While stun guns were not in existence at the end of the 18th century, the same is true for the weapons most commonly used today for self-defense, namely, revolvers and semiautomatic pistols. Revolvers were virtually unknown until well into the 19th century, and semiautomatic pistols were not invented until near the end of that century. Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amendment’s protections, simply because they were unknown to the First Congress, than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment, or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016

You can read (and I urge you to do so) starting in page 15. It is a careful dissection of the stupidity of the lame meme used by Gun Control, Gun Sense and “Gun Safety” fanatics. The closing alone is worth the price of admission.

A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds. This Court’s grudging per curiam now sends the case back to that same court. And the consequences for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for selfdefense. See Pet. for Cert. 14. If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.

There you go.

slap
“You can only own weapons that were common in….” (SLAP!)

 

10 Replies to “The Day that “You can only own muskets” died a shameful death.”

    1. Pearl clutching, gnashing of teeth with a chance of racism at Clarence Thomas. That’s probably the ticket for our beloved peace activist brown shirt gun grabbers.

      Also known as “Tuesday”.




      0



      0
  1. To be clear, the quotes are from the concurrence by Alito, joined by Thomas (and a concurrence to a per curium opinion is itself unusual). Said concurrence is not binding, though it does have the money quotes. Moreover, Alito notes that this was a “grudging” per curium; it appears that the Heller dissenters had to be reminded of the bigger issue here: that SCOTUS opinions cannot simply be ignored willy-nilly, or you no longer have the rule of law.

    The Heller dissenters haven’t suddenly come around. They were protecting the institution of the Court. Given the chance to overturn Heller, they would still do so. But they can’t have lower courts simply ignoring the SCOTUS.




    0



    0
    1. I interpreted grudging per curiam as they grudgingly must pass the case back to ma supreme Court with the guidance issued and simply cannot overturn their ruling. I think it is supported by the end where alito mentions that the woman may yet face a tragic outcome.

      However, I can see the merit of your point as well.




      0



      0
  2. “Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amendment’s protections, simply because they were unknown to the First Congress, than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment, or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment.”

    This is the exact point I have been making since the first time I heard the “muskets” theory of the 2nd Amendment. So glad to see that retort enshrined in a Supreme Court document.




    0



    0
  3. It’s actually much easier to shut up someone who wants to throw out the “2nd Amendment is only for muskets” argument. Simply ask them if they would allow any adult to carry a single-shot flintlock pistol at all times, anywhere…no exclusions. This means schools, government buildings…even airplanes. Anywhere, anytime. They will still insist on infringements, even when you actually offer to stipulate to 18th century weapons.




    0



    0
  4. See also: Leyden Jar. Archeotype stun gun. Ben Franklin had them, and probably used it as a party gag on occasion.




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .