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 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.

It is so ordered."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032116zor_h3ci.pdf

Thanks, clearwater. Good share.

I find it amazing what governments will try to do to keep their subjects disarmed. We're talking stun guns folks. I'm sure a criminal here and there may have used one, but the great majority are used by honest citizens to defend themselves. They are basically harmless. Maybe they create some pain and incapacitation for a few minutes (it's debatable how effective they are), but not lethal or causing permanent harm. There is no reason for government to take them away from people. I'm glad the courts apparently recognized that in this case. But the government is already responding to that by trying to stack the courts to do their bidding to disarm everyone. It's sad. People have a right to defend themselves - be that with stun guns, knives, firearms, or whatever.

I think what happened with the stun gun may be similar to the regulation of pepper spray in places like New York State and Boston. Some people used pepper spray to commit a string of crime -- mostly robbery, as I recall. So then you get the predictable outcry: "Why do criminals have access to weapons?" Before you know it, you can no longer easily get pepper spray. Only certain places sell them, and you have to register to purchase. Mail-order companies cannot ship pepper spray to New York State. You are not allowed to bring pepper spray from out of state, etc.

I think it notable that is was a 8 to 0 decision.

Refreshing with so much else being polarized along party lines.