"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 people than about keeping them safe"
-- Samuel Alito, writing in concurrence with Caetano v. Massachusetts
Although Caetano was specifically about the ridiculius Massachusetts ban on stun guns, in its plain language... no interpretation required... the decision makes clear that states cannot arbitrarily classify as "uniquely dangerous or unusual", any weapons which are useful for all lawful purposes including lawful self defense, or which are in common use.
It also specifically, explicitly, and completely, demolishes the notion that because a weapon was not available or common at the time of the 2nd amendments ratification, or whenever a particular law was passed; that such weapons could be legitimately banned, when they become available or common in future.
This establishes a foundation for overturning things like the so called "assault weapons bans" in the eight states which currently have them, as well as preventing future federal bans.
And, be it noted, it was a UNANIMOUS decision from the Supremes. That is huge(as huge as all nine justices ruling that the 2nd refers to 'a preexisting individual right', which is why leftists and hoplophobes don't like that to be brought up); from Larry Correia on Bookface,
So that whole dumb argument about how the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets you anti-gun mopes have been trying to use for decades? Well, that was so idiotic that even Ruth Bader Ginsberg was embarrassed for you.
More on the huge from Chris:
Gura is gonna have an utter field day with this...
It essentially destroys so called assault weapons bans, magazine restrictions, ammunition restrictions... All are in common use for self defense all over the country, and a single state trying to say otherwise... done and done.
Lots of clowns in places like Chicago and New York are going to have screaming fits over this.
More from over at Say Uncle from the decision:
The Court has held that the Second Amendment ex- tends, 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 Amend- ment right is fully applicable to the States, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Su- preme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massa- chusetts 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).
Alito and Thomas* wrote an opinion
"The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself," Alito wrote. "To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds." According to Alito, "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 people than about keeping them safe."
Which is exactly what the PROMs and New York and Californicated are up to. Remember that bit about screaming fits? They'll be heard from both coasts, as well as a few places in the middle.
One other thing: there was also a ruling on a case by OK and NB against the marijuana law in Colorado that went for Colorado.
They argued that Colorado's law violates the federal Controlled Substances Act, which treats marijuana as a dangerous drug and forbids its sale or use. They urged the Supreme Court to take up the issue as an "original" matter and declare that Colorado's law was preempted by the federal drug laws.
Which brought up a comment from someone:
As an added bonus, this ruling could undermine lawsuits by places like Chicago or NYC complaining that states without unconstitutional gun laws harm them by undermining their own unconstitutional gun laws...
*shouldn't have left Thomas out, and yes, I got Scalia and Alito mixed up