Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Caetano v. Massachusetts

Supreme Court of the United States · 2016 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSecond AmendmentRight to Bear ArmsState Regulation of WeaponsSecond Amendmentbearable armsstun gunsdangerous and unusual weapons

Facts

Massachusetts prohibited the possession of stun guns. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld that prohibition after asking whether a stun gun was the type of weapon contemplated in 1789 as protected by the Second Amendment. That court gave three reasons: stun guns were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment, were unusual because they are a thoroughly modern invention, and were not shown by the record to be readily adaptable to military use.

Issue

Whether the Second Amendment permits a state court to uphold a ban on stun guns on the grounds that stun guns were not in common use in 1789, are unusual because they are modern inventions, or are not readily adaptable to military use.

Rule

The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those not in existence at the time of the founding, and that right applies to the States. A court may not deny Second Amendment protection to a weapon merely because it is modern, was not commonly used in 1789, or is not useful in warfare.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Oregon makes it a misdemeanor to possess a handheld sonic pulse device designed to temporarily incapacitate an attacker. In upholding the ban, the Oregon Supreme Court reasons that the device falls outside the Second Amendment because no such weapon existed in 1791.

Under the controlling Supreme Court rule, is that reasoning sufficient to sustain the ban?

Explanation. The majority rule is that the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those not in existence at the time of the founding, and that right applies against the States. A court therefore may not uphold a ban solely because the weapon is a modern invention unknown in 1791.