State must rewrite flawed stun-gun law
While Massachusetts’ guncontrol laws are recognized as some of the most restrictive in the nation, its blanket ban on the civilian use of stun guns pushed that envelope beyond legal boundaries.
That’s the reluctant opinion of the state’s Supreme Judicial Court, which recently struck down that law. It reverses a previous SJC ruling in 2016 that upheld the conviction of Jaime Caetano for possessing a stun gun.
Caetano, who feared for her physical well-being after an altercation with her boyfriend, was given a stun gun by a friend to use for self-defense. On a subsequent occasion when her boyfriend threatened her, Caetano defused the situation by threatening to use the stun gun. However, when police discovered she had a stun gun, Caetano was arrested and convicted under Massachusetts law. Caetano appealed the Massachusetts court’s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The High Court rightly vacated the SJC’s ruling, indicating the basis for the state court’s decision violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The High Court rejected the state’s reasoning that since stun guns didn’t exist at the time the Second Amendment was adopted, owning them couldn’t be a protected practice.
The Supreme Court offered precedent opinions that ruled Second Amendment rights extend to modern firearms not contemplated at the time of its writing. Caetano’s conviction was subsequently dismissed.
Since that decision, the Massachusetts law has existed in a legislative limbo — not enforceable, but still on the books.
In the interim, the SJC has weighed whether it could tailor the state statute to fit the Supreme Court standard without initiating a new law, which can only be done by the Legislature.
After concluding it couldn’t, the state court had no choice but to set aside the stun-gun ban as written. However, Chief Justice Ralph D. Gants, in writing the majority opinion, did offer suggestions to legislators to refine the law. By following the requirements for owning a firearm, the state could insist that in order for stun-gun owners to be licensed, they must have no violent-crime convictions, never been committed to an institution for substance abuse, be over the age of 15 and be eligible to obtain a firearm identification card.
House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and interim Senate President Harriette Chandler are already reviewing the SJC decision and weighing language that doesn’t stray from its opinion.
The state court essentially has given the Legislature 60 days to come up with alternative legislation or the current ban will lapse. We’re confident lawmakers can formulate a compromise bill that allows law-abiding citizens like Jaime Caetano to possess a stun gun for self-defense.