Stun guns for self-defense
Caetano v. Massachusetts
In brief
The Supreme Court wiped out the Massachusetts high court's ruling and sent Caetano's case back for more proceedings.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 8-0 · March 21, 2016 · Per curiam
- What it’s about
- Jaime Caetano challenged her Massachusetts conviction for possessing a stun gun, arguing that the Second Amendment protects having one for self-defense.
- Who it affects
- Caetano's case remains open for further proceedings in Massachusetts; the Supreme Court's order does not state their outcome.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court wiped out the Massachusetts high court’s judgment (vacated it) and sent the case back for further proceedings (remanded it).
Justice Alito's separate opinion recounts that Caetano had obtained multiple restraining orders against an abusive former boyfriend, but they proved futile; a friend offered her a stun gun for protection. It says she later displayed it when he confronted her outside work, and he left.
Caetano argued that the Second Amendment can protect weapons, including stun guns, that did not exist when the amendment was adopted.
Question presented
Does the Second Amendment protect the right to possess a stun gun for self-defense?
What the Court decided
Holding
The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
- Result
- Vacated
The vote
What's next
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is to continue proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Opinion added: Caetano
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.