“The City has banned an arm in common use for lawful purposes by law-abiding citizens. Therefore, the Ordinance violates the Second Amendment.”
That’s not why the ban violates it. [More]
If something needs to be officially designated “popular” by government in order to be “legal,” we may as well start calling each other “Comrade.”
As the “Hughes Amendment” (fraudulently enacted) barred us acquisition and possession of machine guns made post ’86 the “common use” trap will ultimately forbid us novel and improved weaponry going forward. The “new” terrible implements of the soldier are not in common use.
(must get grand-spawn 3d printing and metal working tools before all are declared illegal)
Ладно, пока Komrade (right, wrong, maybe so)
The “sporting purposes” text comes from a Nazi era German weapons law. Not sure exactly where the “in common use” text originated.
Regardless, neither appears in the founding documents, founding era discussions, or historical laws as required by the Bruen test.
For SCOTUS, who originated the Bruen test, in particular, or for any Federal court to be using reasoning that does not comply with Bruen, at this late date, is troubling to say the least.
Did you mean to say in that article that AR15s are not weapons of war?
Ignoring that BS term was made up by the anti’s for political reasons if you are going to use it then what would be your criteria for claiming they are not?
I meant to reiterate that modern militaries do not use civilian AR-15s. They use select-fire derivatives like the M16 and M4.