Problem: Massachusetts has a law that makes it a crime to possess a "stun gun" in public. The defendant was convicted under this law for carrying a stun gun in her purse. She said she needed it to protect herself from an abusive former boyfriend. On appeal she contended the total ban of stun guns violated the Second Amendment. The appeals court disagreed, reasoning that (1) the Second Amendment only pro- tects possession of weapons that were in common use when the Amendment was adopted, (2) stun guns are a "thoroughly modern invention," and (3) are not adaptable for military use, like ordinary ?re- arms are. It therefore affirmed the defendant's con- viction. Is this decision consistent with Heller? Why or why not? See Caetano v. Massachusetts, 2016 WL 1078932 (2016) for the U. 8. Supreme Court's opinion of those reasons. '