Supreme Court Sound Bites

Sound Bite: Facts of the case. 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.”

Sound Bite: The Second Amendment extends to arms that were not in existence at the time of the founding 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[...]

Sound Bite: Stun guns are [not] “unusual”, because they are “a thoroughly modern invention”. The court next asked, whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law, and unusual,” in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying[...]

Sound Bite: Stun guns [need not be] readily adaptable to use in the military. 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.” But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.”

Sound Bite: Order The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.