Does Massachusetts' ban unconstitutionally infringe the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment?

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court exhaustively analyzed the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), concluding that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right of self-defense, id. at 595, and protects common firearms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” id. at 625. The Court struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on possession of handguns and operable rifles and shotguns, holding a ban on arms typically possessed for lawful purposes is inconsistent with the Second Amendment’s text, history, and tradition. Jd. at 627-29. This Court confirmed Heller’s standard and applied it to the states in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 790-91 (2010). Six years later, the Court made clear the Heller standard was to be applied in reviewing the constitutionality of a state ban on possession of stun guns. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1027-28 (2016) (per curiam). Massachusetts prohibits the possession of firearms and ammunition magazines that are typically possessed by law-abiding, responsible citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense. The court of appeals rejected Heller’s text, history, and tradition standard, instead applying a two-part approach to uphold the ban under intermediate scrutiny. App. 11-28. The question presented is: Does Massachusetts’ ban unconstitutionally infringe the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment?