Caetano v. Massachusetts

https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...ar-nra-backed-challenge-to-assault-weapon-ban

"In the*Maryland*case, the court turned away an appeal by several residents, firearms dealers and the state NRA, who argued that the ban violated their right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment. In doing so, the justices sidestepped the roiling national debate over the availability of military style guns."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...o+v.+massachusetts&hl=en&as_sdt=4006&as_vis=1

"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,'*District of Columbia v. Heller,*554 U.S. 570, 582, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008),*and that this 'Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,' McDonald v. Chicago,*561 U.S. 742, 750, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010).

Two questions. Will gun rights advocates rely on Caetano to insist that any and all bearable weapons bans violate the Constitution? Specifically, when the SCOTUS someday accepts one of these cases, will it overturn assault weapons bans in the states and localities that have them?

MateoMtnClimber said:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...ar-nra-backed-challenge-to-assault-weapon-ban

"In the*Maryland*case, the court turned away an appeal by several residents, firearms dealers and the state NRA, who argued that the ban violated their right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment. In doing so, the justices sidestepped the roiling national debate over the availability of military style guns."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...o+v.+massachusetts&hl=en&as_sdt=4006&as_vis=1

"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,'*District of Columbia v. Heller,*554 U.S. 570, 582, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008),*and that this 'Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,' McDonald v. Chicago,*561 U.S. 742, 750, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010).

Two questions. Will gun rights advocates rely on Caetano to insist that any and all bearable weapons bans violate the Constitution? Specifically, when the SCOTUS someday accepts one of these cases, will it overturn assault weapons bans in the states and localities that have them?

Click to expand...

Why not rely on the language written in the constitution

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

trouble13 said:

Why not rely on the language written in the constitution

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Is that a rhetorical question?

MateoMtnClimber said:

Is that a rhetorical question?

Click to expand...

I mean it literally. Im not familiar with the case your referencing but the language of tje 2nd A seems pretty straight forward to me.

The govs authority is prohibitted from being used to restrict a persons ability to keep and bare arms. I dont see how any gun control law does not come into direct conflict with that language.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

trouble13 said:

I mean it literally. Im not familiar with the case your referencing but the language of tje 2nd A seems pretty straight forward to me.

The govs authority is prohibitted from being used to restrict a persons ability to keep and bare arms. I dont see how any gun control law does not come into direct conflict with that language.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

That's your interpretation of the 2A and the question I am asking. Many different gun bans have existed in this country, including at the federal level. The SCOTUS has not taken a definitive position on them. Is it your opinion that any gun that now exists or may ever be created should be allowed to be privately owned and used by individual citizens?

trouble13 said:

Why not rely on the language written in the constitution

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I agree 100%:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174

Bucky said:

I agree 100%:



https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174

Click to expand...

Pistols existed before the bill of rights

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

trouble13 said:

Pistols existed before the bill of rights

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

In fact, multishot pistols existed before the Bill of Rights. Pepperbox revolvers were available in 1780.

MateoMtnClimber said:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...ar-nra-backed-challenge-to-assault-weapon-ban

"In the*Maryland*case, the court turned away an appeal by several residents, firearms dealers and the state NRA, who argued that the ban violated their right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment. In doing so, the justices sidestepped the roiling national debate over the availability of military style guns."

Click to expand...

military-style guns aren't available to the public.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...o+v.+massachusetts&hl=en&as_sdt=4006&as_vis=1

"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,'*District of Columbia v. Heller,*554 U.S. 570, 582, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008),*and that this 'Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,' McDonald v. Chicago,*561 U.S. 742, 750, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010).

Two questions. Will gun rights advocates rely on Caetano to insist that any and all bearable weapons bans violate the Constitution? Specifically, when the SCOTUS someday accepts one of these cases, will it overturn assault weapons bans in the states and localities that have them?

Click to expand...

An assault weapon is defined as an object is nothing if we go look at the assault weapons ban of 94 it did not ban a single firearm. It banned cosmetic features. That you could actually purchase individually and add on to it.

MateoMtnClimber said:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...ar-nra-backed-challenge-to-assault-weapon-ban

"In the*Maryland*case, the court turned away an appeal by several residents, firearms dealers and the state NRA, who argued that the ban violated their right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment. In doing so, the justices sidestepped the roiling national debate over the availability of military style guns."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...o+v.+massachusetts&hl=en&as_sdt=4006&as_vis=1

"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,'*District of Columbia v. Heller,*554 U.S. 570, 582, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008),*and that this 'Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,' McDonald v. Chicago,*561 U.S. 742, 750, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010).

Two questions. Will gun rights advocates rely on Caetano to insist that any and all bearable weapons bans violate the Constitution? Specifically, when the SCOTUS someday accepts one of these cases, will it overturn assault weapons bans in the states and localities that have them?

Click to expand...

I sure as heck hope so, it is ludicrous to ban semi-automatic rifles or handguns, the problem is not, nor has it ever been the guns, the problem is the People using them.

CLAX1911 said:

military-style guns aren't available to the public.


An assault weapon is defined as an object is nothing if we go look at the assault weapons ban of 94 it did not ban a single firearm. It banned cosmetic features. That you could actually purchase individually and add on to it.

Click to expand...

None of that addresses anything in my OP. What is to prevent military style guns from being made available to the public given the Caetano ruling? Additionally, as I already asked, will the Caetano ruling invalidate weapons bans where they currently exist? I'm talking about semi-automatic guns and other weapons that are selectively banned.

Casper said:

[/B]

I sure as heck hope so, it is ludicrous to ban semi-automatic rifles or handguns, the problem is not, nor has it ever been the guns, the problem is the People using them.

Click to expand...

I'm not asking for canned, knee jerk reactions from people obsessed with guns and people obsessed with banning guns. I can get that in every thread in this forum that has anything to do with a firearm. I'm asking an intellectual and legal question about the precedent set by a specific SCOTUS ruling.

MateoMtnClimber said:

None of that addresses anything in my OP. What is to prevent military style guns from being made available to the public given the Caetano ruling?

Click to expand...

the can Control Act of 1968. It was amended in 1986 Buy FOPA but not to the point where people could obtain military style weapons.

Additionally, as I already asked, will the Caetano ruling invalidate weapons bans where they currently exist? I'm talking about semi-automatic guns and other weapons that are selectively banned.

Click to expand...

semi-automatic weapons are not banned. We will have to see I seriously doubt it. Most people are okay with machine guns being banned to the degree at which they're banned but even if it does ever will them it's not going to affect anything.

Someone isn't more intimidating because they can fire a hundred rounds a minute without moving their finger versus firing a hundred rounds a minute hooking their thumb through their belt loop.

CLAX1911 said:

the can Control Act of 1968. It was amended in 1986 Buy FOPA but not to the point where people could obtain military style weapons.

semi-automatic weapons are not banned. We will have to see I seriously doubt it. Most people are okay with machine guns being banned to the degree at which they're banned but even if it does ever will them it's not going to affect anything.

Someone isn't more intimidating because they can fire a hundred rounds a minute without moving their finger versus firing a hundred rounds a minute hooking their thumb through their belt loop.

Click to expand...

You're having difficulty understanding this thread. Have you read the Caetano ruling? Do you know anything about it? I'm not an expert on gun policy, but I believe the functional piece of legislation banning military style guns is the National Firearms Act of 1934 with the FOPA of 1986 contributing. To the extent that the Gun Control Act of 1968 (assuming that's what you meant by "can control") also governs these things, none of the laws mean anything if the SCOTUS invalidates them. My instinct related to the Caetano ruling is that it is sufficiently broad so as to open the door for the SCOTUS to do exactly that.

Semi-automatic weapons are banned at this very moment in seven states and a number of cities and counties. That's why I started this thread. I'm asking people who know more about this subject than I do whether the SCOTUS will use the Caetano decision to overturn the assault weapons bans that already exist in places where citizens want them.

MateoMtnClimber said:

You're having difficulty understanding this thread. Have you read the Caetano ruling? Do you know anything about it? I'm not an expert on gun policy, but I believe the functional piece of legislation banning military style guns is the National Firearms Act of 1934 with the FOPA of 1986 contributing. To the extent that the Gun Control Act of 1968 (assuming that's what you meant by "can control") also governs these things, none of the laws mean anything if the SCOTUS invalidates them. My instinct related to the Caetano ruling is that it is sufficiently broad so as to open the door for the SCOTUS to do exactly that.

Semi-automatic weapons are banned at this very moment in seven states and a number of cities and counties. That's why I started this thread. I'm asking people who know more about this subject than I do whether the SCOTUS will use the Caetano decision to overturn the assault weapons bans that already exist in places where citizens want them.

Click to expand...

I don't believe you are correct when you state that semi automatic weapons are banned in seven states. And I doubt they are banned in a number of cities or counties. Please provide a list of states that ban semi automatic weapons.

MateoMtnClimber said:

You're having difficulty understanding this thread. Have you read the Caetano ruling? Do you know anything about it? I'm not an expert on gun policy, but I believe the functional piece of legislation banning military style guns is the National Firearms Act of 1934 with the FOPA of 1986 contributing. To the extent that the Gun Control Act of 1968 (assuming that's what you meant by "can control") also governs these things, none of the laws mean anything if the SCOTUS invalidates them.

Click to expand...

I understand that just fine. I don't understand your concern.

What values do you get out of military style weapons being banned? What do you lose if the ban is overturned?

Basically I'm asking what is there to be concerned about?

My instinct related to the Caetano ruling is that it is sufficiently broad so as to open the door for the SCOTUS to do exactly that.

Click to expand...

maybe so.

Semi-automatic weapons are banned at this very moment in seven states and a number of cities and counties.

Click to expand...

oh well they shouldn't be. States don't have the right to interfere with your right to own firearms.

I think about the oberfell decision there were states that banned same-sex marriage it wasn't okay for them to do that. This would limit States power to interfere with the Bill of Rights. It's a good thing.

That's why I started this thread. I'm asking people who know more about this subject than I do whether the SCOTUS will use the Caetano decision to overturn the assault weapons bans that already exist in places where citizens want them.

Click to expand...

Well I don't really know I'm going to predict that should this really happen and someone in one of these places that wants to file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court against their state then they'll hear it and they'll probably rule against the state.

It shouldn't matter if everybody in your community wants to stop you from owning a gun or marrying the person you love or belonging to a certain Church we are not a dictatorship. People in those communities and states are Americans first. Thus they are all entitled to the same rights.

So if someone doesn't bring this to the federal court I hope they rules such bans unconstitutional. But in all honesty I can't tell you I can't predict.

jaeger19 said:

I don't believe you are correct when you state that semi automatic weapons are banned in seven states. And I doubt they are banned in a number of cities or counties. Please provide a list of states that ban semi automatic weapons.

Click to expand...

The states that have banned assault weapons are California, Connecticut, Hawai'i, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/128...n-assault-weapons-and-scotus-wont-change-that

https://gun.laws.com/semi-automatic-laws

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

MateoMtnClimber said:

You're having difficulty understanding this thread. Have you read the Caetano ruling? Do you know anything about it? I'm not an expert on gun policy, but I believe the functional piece of legislation banning military style guns is the National Firearms Act of 1934 with the FOPA of 1986 contributing. To the extent that the Gun Control Act of 1968 (assuming that's what you meant by "can control") also governs these things, none of the laws mean anything if the SCOTUS invalidates them. My instinct related to the Caetano ruling is that it is sufficiently broad so as to open the door for the SCOTUS to do exactly that.

Semi-automatic weapons are banned at this very moment in seven states and a number of cities and counties. That's why I started this thread. I'm asking people who know more about this subject than I do whether the SCOTUS will use the Caetano decision to overturn the assault weapons bans that already exist in places where citizens want them.

Click to expand...

That (bolded above) assertion is not correct. Certain semi-auto guns are banned as "assault weapons" but not all of them.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/128...n-assault-weapons-and-scotus-wont-change-that

Hoepfully the SCOTUS will soon act to define what guns are (or are not) covered by the 2A and that states must comply. Now that a slight "conservative" bias exists in the SCOTUS may be just the time to go after some of these state/city bans of selected guns based on features that have nothing to do with ballistics.

MateoMtnClimber said:

The states that have banned assault weapons are California, Connecticut, Hawai'i, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/128...n-assault-weapons-and-scotus-wont-change-that

https://gun.laws.com/semi-automatic-laws

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

Click to expand...

Is it possible these could be overturned by this decision yes is it possible these could be overturned because there's the Second Amendment absolutely all it takes is someone filing a case with the Supreme Court.

States should not be able to make it hard for you to exercise your rights.

CLAX1911 said:

I understand that just fine. I don't understand your concern.

What values do you get out of military style weapons being banned? What do you lose if the ban is overturned?

Basically I'm asking what is there to be concerned about?

maybe so.

oh well they shouldn't be. States don't have the right to interfere with your right to own firearms.

I think about the oberfell decision there were states that banned same-sex marriage it wasn't okay for them to do that. This would limit States power to interfere with the Bill of Rights. It's a good thing.


Well I don't really know I'm going to predict that should this really happen and someone in one of these places that wants to file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court against their state then they'll hear it and they'll probably rule against the state.

It shouldn't matter if everybody in your community wants to stop you from owning a gun or marrying the person you love or belonging to a certain Church we are not a dictatorship. People in those communities and states are Americans first. Thus they are all entitled to the same rights.

So if someone doesn't bring this to the federal court I hope they rules such bans unconstitutional. But in all honesty I can't tell you I can't predict.

Click to expand...

The article I linked in the OP described a lawsuit that dealt with this precise issue. Again, that's why I started the thread. Maryland's assault weapons ban was challenged. The SCOTUS refused to hear it, which left the state's ban in place. I haven't taken a position related to gun bans. I'm just trying to figure out, from a constitutional point of view, whether the Caetano ruling was a way to pave a path to invalidating gun bans. The interpretation that the SCOTUS has given the 2A in recent history is not the intention that the Founders had. Good or bad (I'm not sure), and despite the common popular opinion that all guns should be allowed all the time under nearly any circumstance, I'm not sure that we want machine guns in the streets nor semi automatic guns nor grenades nor tanks. At some point, a public health concern becomes compelling enough that it causes the government to restrict personal liberties in order to protect the common welfare. That's why we having smoking laws and speed limits. Again, I'm not necessarily supportive of gun restrictions (not yet anyway), but the contention that the 2A allows complete unrestricted access to guns is legally unsound. It's also the reason that the NRA and many Americans refuse to even have a discussion about guns, which does nothing to addresses massacres like the one that happened in FL last week. Again, it's why I wanted to check some other people's opinions of Caetano.

ttwtt78640 said:

That (bolded above) assertion is not correct. Certain semi-auto guns are banned as "assault weapons" but not all of them.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/128...n-assault-weapons-and-scotus-wont-change-that

Hoepfully the SCOTUS will soon act to define what guns are (or are not) covered by the 2A and that states must comply. Now that a slight "conservative" bias exists in the SCOTUS may be just the time to go after some of these state/city bans of selected guns based on features that have nothing to do with ballistics.

Click to expand...

I linked that same article. I should have said, "Some semi-automatic weapons are banned at this very moment in seven states and a number of cities and counties." Nonetheless, my point and question remain. Is the SCOTUS going to use the Caetano decision to overturn weapons bans? Caetano reads so broadly to me, that if semi-automatic weapons bans are unconstitutional, then all bans of "bearable" guns (the term used in the ruling) are unconstitutional.

MateoMtnClimber said:

The article I linked in the OP described a lawsuit that dealt with this precise issue. Again, that's why I started the thread. Maryland's assault weapons ban was challenged. The SCOTUS refused to hear it, which left the state's ban in place. I haven't taken a position related to gun bans. I'm just trying to figure out, from a constitutional point of view, whether the Caetano ruling was a way to pave a path to invalidating gun bans.

Click to expand...

bans on guns weren't valid in the first place. So rulings regarding it wouldn't really have an effect on it.

The interpretation that the SCOTUS has given the 2A in recent history is not the intention that the Founders had. Good or bad (I'm not sure), and despite the common popular opinion that all guns should be allowed all the time under nearly any circumstance, I'm not sure that we want machine guns in the streets nor semi automatic guns nor grenades nor tanks.

Click to expand...

that's why people compromise. It is a compromise to save our right to bear arms can be restricted with regard to tanks and explosives.

Absolute freedom is untenable. Generally people understand there have to be limitations to our Liberty.

But I don't know what you're worried about machine guns for. They are no more or less deadly than semiautomatic fire arms.

At some point, a public health concern becomes compelling enough that it causes the government to restrict personal liberties in order to protect the common welfare.

Click to expand...

We see that in the hundreds of regulations.

That's why we having smoking laws and speed limits.

Click to expand...

and believe it or not even if California bans get overturned there will still be hundreds of restrictions on guns and ownership.

There are classes and the licenses I must have in order to carry a gun on me. These licenses are background checks and getting State permission the classes are to train you about the many regulations.

Again, I'm not necessarily supportive of gun restrictions (not yet anyway), but the contention that the 2A allows complete unrestricted access to guns is legally unsound.

Click to expand...

are you haven't ever heard of people that think it should be completely unrestricted. Are you have to have a license to carry one on my person that's a restriction there are hundreds of restrictions.

It's also the reason that the NRA and many Americans refuse to even have a discussion about guns,

Click to expand...

okay now I understand people are really upset about the NRA but the NRA doesn't want this to be the Wild West they are okay with the restrictions we have and there are hundreds there really are. They don't advocate for 100% restriction free access to guns. I don't know of anybody that does.

which does nothing to addresses massacres like the one that happened in FL last week.

Click to expand...

you would have to name of restriction that could have prevented that if there's a such thing I'm absolutely for it.

Again, it's why I wanted to check some other people's opinions of Caetano.

Click to expand...

did you not see my opinion on that?

Okay I'm a very much pro-second Amendment person and I do support the rights of people to own guns but I also support restrictions we have lots of them and I think a lot of them are good and effective or at least somewhat effective. I'm okay having to license people to carry guns because it's important that you know the law and how to respect other people's rights.

So I'm more than willing to have a rational discussion about this but I'm extremely well-versed in gun ownership I don't mind explaining things cuz I know there's nomenclature that sometimes doesn't make sense but a discussion is what I want. I'm personally tired of the politicking back and forth I would love to talk to someone who is open-minded even if they don't agree with me.

CLAX1911 said:

Is it possible these could be overturned by this decision yes is it possible these could be overturned because there's the Second Amendment absolutely all it takes is someone filing a case with the Supreme Court.

States should not be able to make it hard for you to exercise your rights.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, there is no absolute right to unrestricted gun access enshrined anywhere in the Constitution. You think there is, which answers my question. I have a feeling that the current SCOTUS might agree with you, but that was not the Founders' intention nor do I think it would necessarily be a good thing for the country.

MateoMtnClimber said:

In my opinion, there is no absolute right to unrestricted gun access enshrined anywhere in the Constitution. You think there is, which answers my question.

Click to expand...

no I absolutely do not. Nobody is advocating for absolutely no restrictions. I have a concealed handgun license the fact that I need to get that license to carry a gun is a restriction. It is one I support. When I purchase a gun I have to submit to a background check that is a restriction and it is one I'm in favor of. Property Owners can put up signs that say you can't carry guns into their property that is a restriction it is when I'm in favor of. The state says you cannot take guns into a church or a school or a stadium or a courthouse those are all restrictions I am in favor of

There are hundreds of restrictions I am not advocating to get rid of any of them so you are dead wrong when you say that I am.

I thought you wanted the discussion if you're not even going to listen to me then you have no interest in a discussion.

I have a feeling that the current SCOTUS might agree with you, but that was not the Founders' intention nor do I think it would necessarily be a good thing for the country.

Click to expand...

if someone's allowed to buy a machine gun I don't think we're going to see much of a difference because in all reality they're not any more deadly.

MateoMtnClimber said:

The article I linked in the OP described a lawsuit that dealt with this precise issue. Again, that's why I started the thread. Maryland's assault weapons ban was challenged. The SCOTUS refused to hear it, which left the state's ban in place. I haven't taken a position related to gun bans. I'm just trying to figure out, from a constitutional point of view, whether the Caetano ruling was a way to pave a path to invalidating gun bans. The interpretation that the SCOTUS has given the 2A in recent history is not the intention that the Founders had. Good or bad (I'm not sure), and despite the common popular opinion that all guns should be allowed all the time under nearly any circumstance, I'm not sure that we want machine guns in the streets nor semi automatic guns nor grenades nor tanks. At some point, a public health concern becomes compelling enough that it causes the government to restrict personal liberties in order to protect the common welfare. That's why we having smoking laws and speed limits. Again, I'm not necessarily supportive of gun restrictions (not yet anyway), but the contention that the 2A allows complete unrestricted access to guns is legally unsound. It's also the reason that the NRA and many Americans refuse to even have a discussion about guns, which does nothing to addresses massacres like the one that happened in FL last week. Again, it's why I wanted to check some other people's opinions of Caetano.

Click to expand...

It might help to cite Caetano in full then. It was a unanimous opinion (with an additional and stronger “gun rights” concurrence from Alito and Thomas). It is remarkable in how it explained the proper way to analyze the RKBA’s protection of a particular type of weapon (in this case a stun weapon). Here is that opinion in full (without the concurrence)….

PER CURIAM:

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,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N.E.3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller's clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U.S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U.S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and (Slip Op. 2) unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 693-694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment,” the court's second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that (stun guns) are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U.S., at 624-625.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court's precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ 1410078, 1410078-2 (2016)