Notes from the Resistance
Poisoning the Second Amendment Court Record [More]
Herschel observers that “arguing for semi-automatic firearms because they aren’t fully automatic firearms and thus not in military use is the wrong tactic.”
“But we have to do things in increments,” some will argue back.
He realizes that. It’s for when we get to the make-or-break increment we should be worried about.
It’s similar to fears I’ve expressed about how relying on “in common use at the time” is a trap.
To prohibit the imposition of requirements that handguns have certain features generally absent from firearms in common use, and to restore the civil and natural rights of Americans in States hostile to liberty, and for other purposes. [More]
And when Republicans are in a position to actually roll back an infringement…?
Besides: What about arms NOT in common use by any except the standing army because the government won’t allow them to be?
[Via Jess]
“Commonly owned,” “typically possessed” and “ordinary” are key words here. [More]
And “commonly owned,” “typically possessed” and “ordinary” by and for whom is the key question here.
Last I looked, it wasn’t “the right of the people to keep and bear commonly owned, typically possessed and ordinary arms shall not be infringed.” That attitude will result in 2A being rendered a moot point.
You’d think our NSSF “leaders” would know that.
And the prohibitionists are aided in citizen disarmament when “gun rights leaders” not only accept – but argue for an invented “in common use at the time” qualifier that limits permitted firearms to what is commercially popular, as opposed to what soldiers and police carry… [More]
Hitler envisioned a Thousand Year Reich. The goal in the evil minds of fascist gun banners is a totalitarian monopoly of violence—forever.
NSSF REPORT REVEALS FIREARM MAGAZINES WITH CAPACITY OVER 10 ROUNDS IS NATIONAL STANDARD [More]
I see some “gunfluencers” breathlessly celebrating the end of magazine bans, as if we’re dealing with an enemy that gives up, and as if Democrat judges won’t just ignore what they all know anyway.
And once more we’re seeing “in common use at the time” accepted as a popularity contest for “allowed” guns.
Anyone recall seeing that qualifier included in the wording of the Second Amendment?
[Via Jess]
Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal challenge of the Illinois ban on modern semi-auto firearms and “large-capacity magazines” have filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking certiorari in the case of Harrel v. Raoul. [More]
Be careful that you don’t turn “common use” into a precedential limitation.
Japanese startup plans to vaporize space junk using ground lasers [More]
Sorry, “militia”… not “in common use“…
And noting how it used to take a roomfull of equipment to produce a fraction of the computing power of your cell phone, and how quickly that evolved, you’d better believe someday the power supply for an infantry weapon will fit in a portable pack.
[Via Michael G]
Just as they chose handguns in Heller, the American people in large numbers have chosen to arm themselves for their protection with ammunition feeding devices capable of holding more than ten rounds. Because the arms at issue are “in common use” and typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, Washington’s ban violates the Second Amendment. [More]
The common use the Founders were interested in is by the military. That’s why they said “arms.”
[Via Jess]
That the antis have glommed onto “self-defense” as an exclusionary qualifier was inevitable since that’s all the “common possessors” on our side ever talk about.
If we keep limiting ourselves that way, arms needed for the core purpose and all new technological developments restricted to military/police use will be forever denied to the people the Second Amendment was meant to apply to, and not just for “self-defense.”
I’m waiting for one of our legal influencers with a reach longer than mine to admit this and start using it.
Alternatively, I’m waiting for one of them to have the guts to challenge me on this and prove me wrong.
[Via Jess]
Common use and dangerous and unusual are mutually exclusive. Something can’t be dangerous and unusual if it’s in common use. [More]
And if we were doing things according to founding intent, they’d be in common use.
