I'm not a lawyer but I found this on Wikipedia -- Caetano v. Massachusetts. I have bold-italicized the pertinent sections.
Background[edit]
Jaime Caetano was reported to have been hospitalized and "in fear for [her] life" after an altercation with her "abusive" boyfriend.
[2] After obtaining several restraining orders that "proved futile", Caetano accepted a stun gun from a friend for self-defense.
[3] One night, when her ex-boyfriend confronted her outside her work and threatened her, she displayed the stun gun and successfully avoided an altercation.
[3] However, when police discovered that she was in possession of the stun gun, she was arrested, tried, and convicted under a Massachusetts law that outlawed the possession of stun guns.
[4] The
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had said her stun gun was "not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment’s] enactment.”
[5] Caetano then appealed the Massachusetts court's ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States.
[6]
Opinion of the Court[edit]
In a
per curiam decision,
the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing
District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and
McDonald v. City of Chicago,
[9] the Court began its opinion by stating 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" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.
[1] First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted
Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.
[10] Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconsistent with
Heller.
[11] Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that
Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.
[12]
I think there would be ample grounds for an appeal of Judge Young's ill-considered and one-sided ruling.