[Gay State Conservative]

In 2016 SCOTUS handed down a unanimous decision in a case called "Caetano v Massachusetts". In that case the Massachusetts state Supreme Court upheld a criminal conviction of Caetano for possessing an illegal "stun gun". The court ruled that stun guns weren't protected under the 2nd Amendment because they didn't exist when the Amendment was adopted *and* because they're not used by the military.

The SCOTUS ruling stated,clear as day,that weapons that aren't used by the military and those that didn't exist in the late 1700s are *absolutely* protected. At one point in the decision the judges referred to the Massachusetts court's logic in upholding the conviction as "frivolous".

Seems to me that that decision can be used to strike down laws prohibiting certain weapons,certain magazines,etc.

[marktwain]

Quite a few bans have been removed using lawsuits and the Caetano decision.

[for-q-clinton]

I don’t see it that way. I think what they are saying is a “stun” “gun” really isn’t a gun. Just calling something a gun doesn’t make it so.

The real question will be when lasers and plasma weapons become common. Will those be allowed for self defense? The logic the SCOTUS uses says they will if the military uses them ;-)