Notes from the Resistance
N.Y. Federal Judge Upholds N.Y. Stun Gun/Taser Ban… “[T]he Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Therefore, Plaintiffs must show that stun guns and tasers are in “common use” today, and that they are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” [More]
[Via Jess]
A Russian strategist has argued that infantry weapons such as mortars and machine guns are obsolete. He said he believed drones would replace them, making infantry units smaller and lighter. [More]
So, where does that leave the Militia, especially if “in common use at the time” is what our “leaders” are hanging their hats on?
[Via bondmen]
It’s taking care of our immediate needs. However, the Founders bequeathed us a constitution intended “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” If this is all we concern ourselves with, what are we bequeathing to them? Semiautomatic firearm technology that’s already 140 years old…? In a world where technological developments and breakthroughs are being introduced seemingly exponentially, what new “terrible implements” will become standard issue in the next 140 years? [More]
In avoiding legal traps today, care must be taken not to catch ourselves in a more dangerous one tomorrow.
This is How They’ll Just Ignore the Second Amendment [Watch]
I seem to recall somebody — an obscure bellyacher, not a recognized Second Amendment scholar — warning not to overly rely on the “common use” test…
[Via Jess]
ANTI-GUN WASHINGTON POST MAKES HUGE PRO-2A ADMISSION [Watch]
Perhaps. But tying “in common use at the time” to commercial popularity can be a trap.
[Via Jess]
M-16 Era Ends: Army’s 101st Airborne Division Receives Next-Gen Assault Rifles [More]
You and I can’t have those either, because they’re not “in common use.”
As long as we allow that to be defined by what’s popular for “self-defense” and sport as opposed to arms that soldiers bear, we’re giving the prohibitionists an out to screw us.
[Via bondmen]
As should be obvious to all regulars, I do freedom and culture and leave the hardware to those who know it better than I do, which is no doubt many of you. That said, this was just called to my attention and I’m calling ot to yours:
Is this something thast new materials and tech would allow to be perfected?
And if somebody tried, would “in common use” prove a hindrance?
[Via WiscoDave]
What Part of ‘In Common Use’ Don’t You Understand?: How Courts Have Defied Heller in Arms-ban Cases — Again [More]
What I still don’t understand: What if it’s not “in common use” by the public, but is by the military/LE, like post-’86 select-fire rifles?
I know what I say the answer is. I’d like to see it clearly stated by someone with legal gravitas and then challenged in court.
[Via Jess]
“We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances. Its reference to arms does not apply only to those arms in existence in the 18th Century… just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. Thus even though the Second Amendment’s definition of arms is fixed according to the historical understanding that that general definition covers modern…modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. [Watch]
Exactly right. What I’m having trouble connecting the dots on is this:
What is that burden that the government has to bear? The government has to come forth to prove that the arms that they want to ban are not in common use.
Ignoring the first 13 words and focusing exclusively on self-defense leaves the door open to saying post-’86 machine guns are not in common use. It also means that new technological developments that the government reserves for itself will never be.
That is what I’d like to see Mr. Smith elaborate on. I believe he’s one of the few who could.
As an aside, I think the first Republican presidential candidate who promised to nominate him if any Supreme Court openings happen would gain a huge advantage with gun owners.
[Via Stephen I]
Because what was in common use in the past is not what is in common use today, nor what will be in common use tomorrow. At least by the military and by law enforcement. [More]
Withhold technological developments from We the People based on “common use” and at what point in the future does planned obsolescence kick in? Also, as an aside, I don’t know why the editors replaced my photo with one that’s irrelevant to the topic and the caption I wrote.
