Category: Second Amendment

WarOnGuns Correspondent Antigone sends:

Folks-  A thundering Opinion, Yes.

Forgive me old bearers,  for inquiring for our future 2d Amendment bearers.

Positing the following:

Okay, we hold in in our hands an object of varying length, which, when loaded, will present a projected item meant to hit a target. That increasingly, despite decades of foot-dragging, seems a generally protected recognition, when it comes to traditional firearms.

The object, as well as its accompanying loaded item has to be manufactured by someone.

So, when a particle beam future becomes the most recent de rigeuer, will the same be in common use?  If so, when? Especially if prohibited from the jump. 

Will that or a similar item be considered “overwhelmingly chosen, and most preferred?” Will they be included, as now AR-types, in the 2d Amendment, which supposedly “extends to those bearable arms that were not in existence at the time of the Founding”?

And will by then, those “arms” (which are any thing which a person takes into his or her hands or uses in wrath to cast at or strike another), such as historical blunt-physical projectiles, still be generally manufactured, as well as their accompanying varying length ignition objects/projectors?

Or by then, unless such mass-companies persist, will zoning laws in an increasingly smaller residential density preclude the smells, power, obtaining parts and wherewithal for an individual citizen to carry on the productivity?

With any move to such technological advance, will citizen-use obtaining, manufacture, possession, sale and or use, be debated as unusual and/or unusually dangerous?  Bruen did mention that “arms” (customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes) are “modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense.” Didn’t say, as neither does the 2d Amendment, limited to “fire” arms.

As to ‘future’ weapons, see dicta at footnote 26 of the majority opinion (situations of “unprecedented social concern or dramatic technological changes.”), footnote 31, and pages 44-45 & 54-55. Compare Concurring Judge Matey footnote 20, and pages 1-2 of Concurring Judge Mascott saying let’s not go that far, yet.

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in and consolidated the cases of Viramontes v. Cook County [Illinois] and Grant v. Higgins [Connecticut] as to those States’ “assault” weapon bans.

The “future weapons” concern is something I sometimes feel like a voice in the wilderness on, as all the influential “gun rights leaders” talk about is what’s “in common use.” Cases in point:

• Next Generation Army Rifle Highlights Danger of ‘Common Use’ Argument to Defend 2nd Amendment
• ‘In Common Use’ Can Ultimately be Used to Make the Second Amendment a Moot Point
• Adopting Gun-grabber Arguments on ‘Common Use’ Ignores Intent of Second Amendment
• Second Amendment will be Nullified if ‘Common Use’ is Restricted to ‘Popularity’
• Court Upholding Ban on Militia-Suitable Firearms Ignores Key Second Amendment Purpose

I’ve actually been beating that drum for over 20 years– I wrote “Things to Come” for Guns & Ammo back in 2002 (it’s not online and they own the copyright so I can’t just repo it here) that ended with the line:

“It’s been said that a battle isn’t won until a man with a rifle occupies the ground. We must keep in mind that someone probably once said the same thing about spears.”

It’s up to the louder voices to explain why they’re keeping mum on this. Maybe they’re just too busy denying the threat immigration poses to 2A…