Notes from the Resistance
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.