If current military weapons are excluded from the Second Amendment, then First Amendment rights should also be restricted to only meetings in the public square, town criers, and antiquated hand-cranked printing presses.
They aren't see
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
The Problem
Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old man from Chicago, wanted a handgun for self-defense but was not able to get one under local law. A city ordinance required all handguns to be registered, yet Chicago refused all handgun registrations after a 1982 citywide ban. McDonald argued that the Second Amendment applied to the states
as well as the federal government and that this ban was unconstitutional based on the rulings in
Heller. The City of Chicago argued that states should be able to regulate firearms based on local conditions.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court held that Second Amendment protections apply at the state level through “selective incorporation” under the Fourteenth Amendment.
SCOTUS repeated that individual self-defense was at the core of the Second Amendment. Meaning, the constitutional right to bear arms (and its protections as stated in
Heller) prohibits states from enacting bans on handguns for self-defense in the home. This Second Amendment Supreme Court case decision overturned the Second Amendment rulings in
Cruikshank and
Presser.
Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016)
The Problem
Jaime Caetano was charged with owning an illegal weapon after displaying a stun gun during a dangerous encounter with her abusive ex-boyfriend in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) upheld the state prohibition on stun gun possession, stating stun guns weren’t protected by the Second Amendment because they were:
- “Not in common use at the time” of the amendment’s enactment;
- Dangerous and unusual as a “modern invention”; and
- Couldn’t be easily adapted for military use.
The Ruling
This Second Amendment Supreme Court case is often left off most lists because it didn’t impact any gray areas. When SCOTUS took the case, the facts were so clear they were able to issue a
per curiam decision (issued by the court rather than a specific justice) without even having to hear oral arguments. To put it in perspective, from 1946 to 2012, SCOTUS issued a
per curiam decision in only
7% of cases.
The Court made it clear the SJC’s reasoning for upholding the Massachusetts law
violated the Second Amendment, based on both the decisions in
Heller and
McDonald.
They repeated that the Second Amendment protects weapons for self-defense purposes and not just for military reasons, and it applies to weapons “that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” SCOTUS also clarified that simply being a “modern invention” did not make it dangerous and unusual.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurring opinion, also scolded Massachusetts for failing to protect its citizens from others who are dangerous, reminding us that the Second Amendment protects our right to defend our lives when the states “are unable or unwilling” to do so:
“If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, 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.”
