JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I'm all for Bruen trickling down as we all know most of these crazy decisions are patently and blatantly unconstitutional. It's about damn time. But I can't help but feel that the "common use" standard is going to bite us in the butt one day.

There is nothing in 2A, the Federalist Papers, or any of the writings of the founders that allude to guns needing to be in common use to be protected. That standard...as near as I can tell...was completely made up by a group of nine unelected lawyers in Washington D.C. And the problem with it is, how is gun technology ever supposed to advance if guns need to be in "common use" to be protected?

Because at some point, we will FINALLY get the phased plasma rifle...the one in the 40 watt range...But the leftists will ban it claiming we'll a) shoot our eyes out, and b) that it's an "uncommon," and therefore, double super dangerous weapon that should be banned.
 
There is nothing in 2A, the Federalist Papers, or any of the writings of the founders that allude to guns needing to be in common use to be protected. That standard...as near as I can tell...was completely made up by a group of nine unelected lawyers in Washington D.C. And the problem with it is, how is gun technology ever supposed to advance if guns need to be in "common use" to be protected?
I understand the thought but it does not say in common use by civilians it says in common use. So the military M4 and the M249 is in common use around the world but it will take time to take the laws to court and defeat them.

The way I see it it will be the down fall of the NFA as there was no restrictions on these weapons until 1986. Yes in 34 they taxed them but not banned them so they are out there in common use and the government was the one who banned them or they would be even more in common use. That was also determined a NO-NO.

We will see how it plays out.
 
I'm all for Bruen trickling down as we all know most of these crazy decisions are patently and blatantly unconstitutional. It's about damn time. But I can't help but feel that the "common use" standard is going to bite us in the butt one day.

There is nothing in 2A, the Federalist Papers, or any of the writings of the founders that allude to guns needing to be in common use to be protected. That standard...as near as I can tell...was completely made up by a group of nine unelected lawyers in Washington D.C. And the problem with it is, how is gun technology ever supposed to advance if guns need to be in "common use" to be protected?

Because at some point, we will FINALLY get the phased plasma rifle...the one in the 40 watt range...But the leftists will ban it claiming we'll a) shoot our eyes out, and b) that it's an "uncommon," and therefore, double super dangerous weapon that should be banned.
Precisely my thoughts. Thank you!

(idk why the text just sometimes goes bold or whatever I didn't hit anything the bold or even the menu?)
 
I understand the thought but it does not say in common use by civilians it says in common use. So the military M4 and the M249 is in common use around the world but it will take time to take the laws to court and defeat them.

The way I see it it will be the down fall of the NFA as there was no restrictions on these weapons until 1986. Yes in 34 they taxed them but not banned them so they are out there in common use and the government was the one who banned them or they would be even more in common use. That was also determined a NO-NO.

We will see how it plays out.
You mean the same way short-barreled shotguns were commonly used in trench warfare pre 1935?
 
Short-barreled shotgun NFA authorization was challenged, and would perhaps have been nullified. See United States v. Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[4]

Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision had been rendered.
 
You mean the same way short-barreled shotguns were commonly used in trench warfare pre 1935?
Yes but even then most trench guns where 18 in at the time.

From the Miller case
2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.



So what I read is at the time a SBS had no purpose in a militia/military so it was not guaranteed in the 2A, so now you move forward to to day and what is used by the military or would be used by the militia, MP5, M16, M4, M249 SAW, M60 what the Dems would call true military style weapons or Weapons of WAR!

So even in the miller case they sort of state we are guaranteed the weapons the militia/military would use and you did not have to be in a militia to own them.

in Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment prevented the states from "prohibit[ing] the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security." More than four decades later,
in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), the Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment as enshrining that the duty of individuals "to defend our government against all enemies whenever necessity arises is a fundamental principle of the Constitution" and holding that "the common defense was one of the purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution." Meanwhile, in United States v. Miller (1939), in a prosecution under the National Firearms Act (1934), the Supreme Court avoided addressing the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment by merely holding that the "possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" was not "any part of the ordinary military equipment" protected by the Second Amendment.



The courts say one thing the scholars say something different but it is hard to have a militia unless the people are armed, as the people are the Militia.

Some will say we have the national guard but all the President has to do is declare an emergency and the national guard is apart of the Federal ARMY and that is what some of the founders where afraid of, that the people what have no way to stand up against an over reaching tyrannical Federal Government!
 
Short-barreled shotgun NFA authorization was challenged, and would perhaps have been nullified. See United States v. Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[4]

Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision had been rendered.
First time I ever heard about Miller after the first court appearance.

Joe
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top