In a video provided to us, two Randolph police officers detained a man for recording them at the scene of a car accident on Memorial Day. During the detention, one of the officers shouts and throws a temper tantrum. The officers disarmed the man, who is a veteran, by gabbing his knife out of his pocket despite never giving any probable cause for the detention or for the seizure. The man, who asked us not to release his name for fear of reprisal, described himself as an, “Infantry marine going around on Memorial Day trying to at least uphold my oath to the Constitution.”Read More
Jaime Caetano did what she could to protect herself after the father of her two children beat her so badly that she “ended up in the hospital,” but the abuse did not stop.
Then, after she displayed a stun gun when he showed up at her workplace in New Bedford, he “got scared and left [Caetano] alone,” court papers say.
The same stun gun, however, landed Caetano in the middle of a legal battle about the weapon and the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. She was convicted last year under a state law criminalizing the possession of stun guns by private citizens.
Caetano is challenging the law in court, saying it violates her rights under the Second Amendment to defend herself.
In an almost unbelievably sleazy move, the Middlesex District Attorney's Office is trying to use the fact that Caetano is homeless as a reason for denying her the right to carry weapons:
In a twist, the state Supreme Judicial Court is asking whether and how Second Amendment protections for people to defend themselves in their own homes apply to homeless people such as Caetano. She became homeless after leaving the hospital, spending time in a hotel and a shelter, court papers say...
Middlesex County prosecutors, who brought the case against Caetano, argue the Second Amendment does not establish the constitutional right to have a banned electric stun gun outside the home. They argue two Supreme Court decisions that upheld the right to possess handguns for self-defense inside homes does not necessarily extend that protection outside the home...
“Only a ruling from this Court reversing itself or a decision from the United States Supreme Court specifically holding that the Second Amendment protects possession of an electric stun gun or like weapon outside the home would be sufficient to vindicate the defendant’s challenge to her conviction,” Middlesex Assistant District Attorney Michael A. Kaneb said.
He wrote that being homeless does not entitle Caetano to “special protection” under the Second Amendment.
The argument that homeless people have less of a right to possess weapons is perverse considering many women experience homelessness when leaving abusive relationships, but it's exceptionally offensive coming from the Middlesex District Attorney's Office which was embroiled in a huge scandal last year after dropping the ball in the Jared Remy case.
After Jared Remy was arrested for attacking his girlfriend Jennifer Martel, the district attorney's office made no attempt to have him held in jail pending the trial despite his long history of domestic violence. Two days later, Remy murdered Martel.
After her office's performance in the Remy case, one would think District Attorney Marian Ryan would have learned from her failure and began using her position to support victims of domestic violence when they stand up for themselves. Instead, Ryan's office is trying to make sure women are unable to defend themselves and go to jail if they try.
The Supreme Judicial Court will be hearing arguments for the case tomorrow. I'm definitely hoping that they decide to throw the stun gun ban out.
If the courts don't throw the ban out, it will probably stand for a long time. Massachusetts has some of the most restrictive laws about weapons possession in the country and the state legislature isn't likely to change that anytime soon. Until very recently, it was illegal to buy pepper spray without first obtaining a permit from the police, and that positive change was attached to a gun law that makes it easier for police to deny gun permits to people for potentially arbitrary reasons.
Phuong Ngo, a immigrant with US citizenship, was denied a firearms license by the Boston Police Department because the only form of identification he could provide was a US passport. After the gun rights group Commonwealth Second Amendment filed a lawsuit against the police department, they reversed their policy, leading the judge to declare the lawsuit moot. According to the judge's November 7 ruling, which was published in part by The Washington Post:
Plaintiff Phuong Ngo, the foreign-born son of a naturalized U.S. citizen, is a resident of Boston. He applied in July of 2014 to the Boston Police Department for a license to carry firearms. Shortly prior to a fitness interview scheduled for August 21, 2014, Ngo was told by an unidentified uniformed officer in the Licensing Unit that he was required to prove his citizenship by presenting either a birth certificate or naturalization papers, neither of which are available to him. The officer refused to accept his U.S. passport as proof that he is a U.S. citizen.
On September 22, 2014, Ngo, together with Commonwealth Second Amendment, a gun rights advocacy group, filed this Complaint with requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. On being served with the lawsuit, the Boston Police Department, through Detective Lieutenant John McDonough, the Commander of the Licensing Unit, updated its written policy … to specify a valid U.S. passport as an acceptable means of proof of U.S. Citizenship. In light of the formal change of policy, the court no longer has before it a justiciable controversy and the matter is moot.
On it's Facebook page, Commonwealth Second Amendment wrote, "Ultimately we won and smacked Boston around... We will be smacking around any other town that pulls the same crap too."