Commonwealth v. Caetano (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-033-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11718 COMMONWEALTH vs. JAIME CAETANO. Middlesex. December 2, 2014. – March 2, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Firearms. Constitutional Law, Right to bear arms. Self-Defense. Practice, Criminal, Indictment placed on file. Complaint received and sworn to in the Framingham Division of the District Court Department on September 30, 2011. A motion to dismiss was heard by Robert V. Greco, J.; the case was heard by Martine G. Carroll, J., and a motion for sentencing was considered by her. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Benjamin H. Keehn, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant. Michael A. Kaneb, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Keith G. Langer, for Commonwealth Second Amendment, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Eugene Volokh, of California, Michael E. Rosman & Michelle A. Scott, of the District of Columbia, & Lisa J. Steele, for Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. SPINA, J. The defendant, Jaime Caetano, asks us to interpret the holdings of the United States Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 791 (2010), and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008), to afford her a right under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to possess a stun gun in public for the purpose of self-defense. The defendant was arrested for possession of a stun gun in a supermarket parking lot, claiming it was necessary to protect herself against an abusive former boy friend. She now challenges the constitutionality of G. L. c. 140, § 131J, which bans entirely the possession of an electrical weapon with some exceptions not applicable here. We hold that a stun gun is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection, see Heller, supra at 622, and we affirm the defendant’s conviction.[1] 1. Background. At approximately 3 P.M. on September 29, 2011, Ashlandpolice officers responded to a call about a possible shoplifting at a supermarket. The manager of the supermarket had detained someone in the store, and he informed police that the defendant and a man with whom she left the store also may have been involved. The manager pointed to a man standing next to a motor […]