Accordingly, we hold that LCMs do not fit the constitutional definition of “arms” before even reaching whether they are “commonly used for self-defense.”However, LCMs also fall outside either protection of the right to bear arms because the provisions protect only those arms that are commonly used for selfdefense, and we have been presented with no credible and persuasive evidence or argument that LCMs are commonly used for such a purpose. [More]
Gee, who would ever think those arguments could be a trap?
My copy of the Second Amendment does not contain the words “in common use”, “sporting purposes”, or “self defense”.
These are the “angels dancing on the head of a pin” excuses dreamed up by anti-RKBA courts almost from the time of the founding of the Republic. These courts, far from protecting and defending the Constitution, hate the Second Amendment, wish it had never been written, and will do anything and everything they can think of in order to keep American citizens from exercising the RKBA mentioned in the text of the amendment.
The whole point of the Anti-Federalists insisting that the amendments we now call the “Bill of Rights” be contained in a separate document, and not blended in with the main body of the text was to emphasize, in as clear language as possible, that the intent was to take The People’s creator endowed rights off of the table and out of the reach of all three branches of government.
But as the Marine Corps “Gunny” is reported to have responded to John Paul Jones’ “I have not yet begun to fight” speach to the commander of HMS Serapis, “There’s always some poor bastard who doesn’t get the word!”
Even the Heller ruling doesn’t mention “commonly used for self-defense”. It’s “in common use for lawful purposes“. Yet multiple lawyers and courts are incorporating that misquote (I’m beyond believing it’s a “mistake”) into their writings.