The state court repeatedly framed the question before it as whether a particular weapon was “‘in common use at the time’ of enactment of the Second Amendment.” ... In Heller, we emphatically rejected such a formulation. We found the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment” not merely wrong, but “bordering on the frivolous.” ... Instead, we 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.” ... (emphasis added). It is hard to imagine language speaking more directly to the point. Yet the Supreme Judicial Court did not so much as mention it.
The Supreme Judicial Court should be ashamed and embarrassed after reading that quotation. I’m not sure that is possible, but they should be.