Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones, who had previously denied a preliminary injunction in the Carter v. Kemp lawsuit to temporarily override the state restriction on unlicensed carry outside the home, during the COVID-19 emergency as the state of Georgia has stopped processing carry permit applications, struck again.
In the similar Walters v. Kemp et al. lawsuit filed by Lisa Walters, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Firearms Policy Coalition Judge Jones has once again stretched legal theory (and sanity) to the breaking point.
In the order denying the preliminary injunction, Jones found that:
Plaintiffs have not pointed to any binding case law which established the existence of such a right.
Except, as the judge continues, they did.
For example, they quote Caetano v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016) (Alito, J., concurring), arguing . . .
“If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect” Plaintiff Walters and others like her, who wish to carry a handgun in public defense of themselves and their families during these times of societal challenge and unrest, “then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.”
Caetano v. Massachusetts was the case that established that stun guns are protected by the Second Amendment. Jones’ rationale is that since Caetano was about stun guns, then it doesn’t have anything to do with carrying firearms outside of the home. He seems to have not read the quoted passage from Alito’s concurrence in which the Court found that firearm are protected. Nor did he, apparently, note that the ruling began with this:
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,
All…not merely stun guns. The basis of the Caetano ruling is that the right is already well established in case law. Further, Alito observed the right extends well beyond the home.
It is a good thing she did. One night after leaving work, Caetano found her ex-boyfriend “waiting for [her] outside.”
Having a defensive weapon outside the home is a constitutionally protected right. Judge Jones deliberately misconstrued the plaintiffs’ Caetano citation, ignoring the finding that all weapons are covered by Second Amendment, and pretends it only said stun guns.
That is judicial malfeasance. That Jones remains on the bench is one more reason that I have very little confidence in the courts.