In my reading of the recent Supreme Court Bruen decision, it seems quite apparent that arms “in common use” are the type specifically protected by the Second Amendment. Excerpt from Justice Thomas’ opinion:
After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ” that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “ ‘in common use at the time.’ ” Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
Color me (un)surprised that the recently passed HR1808, the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2022,” flies directly and deliberately in the face of that ruling. From this link:
During a committee hearing, Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) asked Rep. Nadler to clarify the Democrat position on the proposed Assault Weapons Ban of 2021 (HR1808) possibly banning weapons that are in “common use.”
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
But Nadler said the quiet part out loud again: “The problem is they are in common use.” For the Left it is the number of guns in private hands that is the “problem,” and and the only “solution” to that is to make the people surrender them, quod erat demonstratum.
And they wonder why we don’t “compromise” and only give up half of what they ask for.
My understanding is that there are about 400 million guns in private hands in the US. Of that supposedly there are about 15 to 20 million MSRs. If that is not common use I don’t know what would be.
I think those numbers are a bit low.
That ‘common use’ clause is a major mistake and grinds me every time I hear it. Supreme Court gave gun control a gift by using that phrase. Arms that are going to be useful in an invasion or domestic tyranny will never be ‘in common use’ because the laws will always stop people from getting anything useful going forward. They can ban pretty much anything that isn’t in ‘common use’ so that you cannot resist easily. Want to take out an armored car, good luck with that. RPG’s or SMAWs aren’t common use so we can ban them. Machine guns, yeah, them too as not in common use anymore (since they were severely restricted and effectively banned). Our government won’t let us level the power dynamic and is working to squash effective comms for organization so it is going to take some cunning if it comes to that.