Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Caetano v. Massachusetts

136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...

Caetano v. Massachusetts

United States Supreme Court

136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016)

Facts

Jaime Caetano (defendant) obtained a stun gun, a weapon that is not designed to seriously harm or kill, after her abusive ex-boyfriend violated multiple restraining orders. Later, police were investigating a shoplifting at a Massachusetts supermarket and believed Caetano, who was in the store parking lot, might have been involved. Caetano consented to a search of her bag, which contained her stun gun. Caetano told the officers that she had obtained the stun gun for personal protection, but she was arrested because Massachusetts law included a blanket prohibition on the possession of electrical weapons. During a bench trial, Caetano and the government (plaintiff) agreed that Caetano had possessed the stun gun, that the stun gun fell within the Massachusetts statutory prohibition against the possession of electrical weapons, and that Caetano possessed the stun gun to protect herself against her ex-boyfriend. Caetano argued that the electrical-weapons statute and possession charges interfered with her Second Amendment rights. Evidence was presented that, although traditional handguns were far more common, hundreds of thousands of stun guns were purchased and possessed for self-defense purposes and they were legal in 45 states. The trial court convicted Caetano for possession of the stun gun, and Caetano appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The conviction was upheld because the court found that the Second Amendment did not extend to possession of stun guns for three reasons: first, stun guns were not commonly used at the time Congress passed the Second Amendment; second, stun guns fell under the general prohibition against possessing dangerous and unusual weapons; and third, stun guns were not useful in a military context. Caetano appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

Concurrence (Alito, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 607,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 34,000 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership