Machine guns are dangerous weapons that aren’t commonly “possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” and a law that criminalizes their possession is therefore consistent with the tradition of firearm regulation in the country, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said Thursday. [More]
So… rather than being the cure-all for what ails us, “common use” can be a trap to limit and ultimately render RKBA obsolete?
[Via Jess]
The only reason they “aren’t commonly ‘possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes'” is because you passed an unconstitutional law to infringe that.
This “In common use” idea is probably the most idiotic thing the 2A movement’s ever come up with, and that’s saying a lot.
One of my fav T-shirts says:
“Things I hate:
1. T-shirts
2. Lists
3. Irony”
Now that I’ve brought up “irony”, Miller was found guilty precisely BECAUSE no evidence had been presented that his short barreled shotgun had any connection to militia use.
SCOTUS has ruled that no jurisdiction can ban BOTH concealed and open carry (although many do so regardless).
So make up your minds, SCOTUS. Does the Second Amendment protect sporting goods, weapons useful to a militia, both, or neither?
Someone needs to make the argument that “in common use for lawful purposes” has nothing to do with the overall number in circulation, and everything to do with the proportion of those available being used for lawful vs. unlawful purposes.
Machine guns are artificially rare because of the NFA. There’s still enough around to be “in common use,” but forget the number registered for a moment and ask, “Is it more common for machine guns to be owned for lawful or unlawful purposes?”
You can substitute any rare or historical firearm – or any other class of items – that are not commonly owned (because they are rare) but are also not subject to bans even though they lack the numbers to be “in common use” under the conventional meaning. They’re not common, but of the ones that still exist, are they more commonly owned for lawful or unlawful purposes?
If we could get the courts to accept that interpretation of “in common use,” the “gun control” industry would very quickly be on life support.
“…everything to do with the proportion of those available being used for lawful vs. unlawful purposes.”
And in the case of a prototype for new tech, will “one” be enough?