Caetano v. Massachusetts
136 S. Ct. 1027
| SCOTUS | 2016Background
- Jaime Caetano possessed a stun gun for self‑defense against a violent ex‑boyfriend after restraining orders failed; she used it once to deter him without injuring him.
- Police discovered the stun gun during a purse search after a shoplifting report; Caetano was arrested under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, §131J, which bans possession of electrical weapons (with limited exceptions).
- At bench trial the Commonwealth stipulated Caetano possessed the device and did not dispute she possessed it for self‑defense; the trial court convicted her and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.
- The Massachusetts court held stun guns are not protected by the Second Amendment because they were not in common use in 1789 and are "dangerous and unusual."
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Massachusetts judgment, and remanded, concluding the state court’s reasoning conflicted with Heller and McDonald.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Caetano) | Defendant's Argument (Massachusetts) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stun guns fall within the Second Amendment’s protection | Stun guns are "bearable arms" commonly owned today for lawful self‑defense and thus protected | Stun guns are not protected because they were not in common use in 1789 and are "dangerous and unusual" | Supreme Court: Vacated and remanded — Massachusetts’ reasoning conflicts with Heller; modern weapons need not have existed in 1789 and state must assess whether weapon is commonly used by law‑abiding citizens today |
| Whether "dangerous and unusual" weapons doctrine excludes stun guns | Even if potentially dangerous, stun guns are widely used for lawful self‑defense and are non‑lethal | Stun guns may be "dangerous per se" and thus fall into a traditional prohibition | Court: State erred by treating dangerousness and unusualness in a way inconsistent with Heller; cannot categorically exclude commonly used arms |
| Whether protection depends on military utility | Stun guns need not be useful in warfare to be protected; Second Amendment covers civilian arms commonly possessed for lawful purposes | Because stun guns are modern and not militarily adaptable, they fall outside protection | Court: Rejected test tying protection to military utility; Heller forbids limiting protection to weapons useful in warfare |
| Proper inquiry for Second Amendment coverage | Focus on whether weapon is commonly possessed by law‑abiding citizens for lawful purposes today | Focus on whether weapon existed or was common in 1789 or whether it is a military weapon | Court: Remanded; emphasized Heller’s rule: prima facie protection extends to modern bearable arms and inquiry is contemporary common use by law‑abiding citizens |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (recognized individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense and explained limits like "dangerous and unusual" weapons)
- McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (held Second Amendment applies to the States)
- United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (discussed weapons "in common use" in the context of militia-focused analysis)
- Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (cited for the proposition that modern technologies are covered by constitutional protections)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (similar point about constitutional coverage of modern devices)
- Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296 (Massachusetts case addressing "dangerous per se" weapons doctrine cited by the state court)