Amicus Brief In 9th Circuit - What arms are "common"

Fixxah

NES Member
Rating - 100%
40   0   0
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
28,770
Likes
7,707
Location
Norwood mostly.
Common sense tells us what we already know. The game is to simply keep control of our rights no matter how they do it. Stuffing the courts with prog judges was the best way to continue their fantasy. In 1976 no less, handguns were banned in D.C., quite the Bi-Centennial celebration of freedom. Said no one. One has to be blind not to see what has happened since 1934. California thinks their shit don't stink but it is just the bastion of evil with nice weather and scenic landscapes. They need to be cut off from the rest of this land and stand on their own just as leadership has demanded. That is until the next disaster they have their hands in creating and come begging for our money. Rinse and repeat.
 

DispositionMatrix

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
3,700
Likes
997
Location
SoNH
The above is agreed by all sides. "[T]hat the rifles are more accurate and easier to control is precisely why California has chosen to ban them." Rupp v. Becerra, 401 F. Supp.3d 978, 993 (C.D. Ca. 2019).
 

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
2,514
Likes
2,371
Location
RI
The italicization of legal citations always bothers me, as does that font in the brief [laugh]

I've always found the "common use" theory as circuitous. To be in common use, people have to buy the gun. To be available for sale, the gun has to be legal to buy, and, most importantly, easy for the lowest common denominator of gun owner to buy. So the gun has to be legal to buy, easy to buy, and probably cheap to buy to be in common use and thus precluded from a ban. So the gun has to be legal to buy to be... legal to buy?

Think about it, what if the antis latched onto banning MSRs back in the 60s? Say instead of attacking things like serial numbers not being on guns or mail order purchase of guns, they attacked ARs and AKs and FALs in GCA68? Doing so would've precluded the MSR market from existing. MSRs have only really become the "everyman rifle" since after the 2004 AWB.

The common use argument, I think, was thrown in by Scalia to get a 5-4 majority and really should be viewed as dicta. Common use is logically untenable. The argument boils down to, logically, "everyone's got one, so we're good!"

Keep in mind that the basis of the common use theory stems from US v. Miller, which from a pro-2A point of view, was horribly litigated. Miller, the appellant, couldn't afford to send counsel to SCOTUS for oral argument. In today's world, that wouldn't fly because the guy would have some form of appellate counsel like a public defender or court-appointed counsel. Miller is bad law and needs to be viewed as such.
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
17,458
Likes
8,742
accurate/deadly = ban quote

Sounds like 30-50 years ago all over again. Gotta ban those high-powered super accurate sniper rifles. And big booming handguns that can scramble a man's insides. And small concealable guns that someone can hide. And cheap guns that are inaccurate and can blow up in someone's hand. And cheaply made rifles that are inaccurate and can harm bystanders. And shotguns, because, well, shotguns.

Marginalization to ban everything. I'm convinced about half the time, half the people have no idea what they are doing. I don't base that on gun stuff, I base it on the average intelligence of hte average American. Once FEEEEEELINGS get involved, their logic circuits just shut down. "If only we did X, we'd be OK." Hell, I listened to very-intelligent Malcolm Gladwell talk about seizing wealth and redistributing it this week. Now, given 8 seconds to think about it, he'd say, "Wait a second - that's stupid. We can't do that." But when caught up in his FEEEEEEEELINGS, he's all for Socialism.
 

DispositionMatrix

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
3,700
Likes
997
Location
SoNH
The italicization of legal citations always bothers me, as does that font in the brief [laugh]

I've always found the "common use" theory as circuitous. To be in common use, people have to buy the gun. To be available for sale, the gun has to be legal to buy, and, most importantly, easy for the lowest common denominator of gun owner to buy. So the gun has to be legal to buy, easy to buy, and probably cheap to buy to be in common use and thus precluded from a ban. So the gun has to be legal to buy to be... legal to buy?

Think about it, what if the antis latched onto banning MSRs back in the 60s? Say instead of attacking things like serial numbers not being on guns or mail order purchase of guns, they attacked ARs and AKs and FALs in GCA68? Doing so would've precluded the MSR market from existing. MSRs have only really become the "everyman rifle" since after the 2004 AWB.

The common use argument, I think, was thrown in by Scalia to get a 5-4 majority and really should be viewed as dicta. Common use is logically untenable. The argument boils down to, logically, "everyone's got one, so we're good!"

Keep in mind that the basis of the common use theory stems from US v. Miller, which from a pro-2A point of view, was horribly litigated. Miller, the appellant, couldn't afford to send counsel to SCOTUS for oral argument. In today's world, that wouldn't fly because the guy would have some form of appellate counsel like a public defender or court-appointed counsel. Miller is bad law and needs to be viewed as such.
Agreed that "common use" was a poor idea to codify into a ruling. That's how they're going to disallow us from having phase plasma rifles in the 40-watt range.
 

92G

NES Member
Rating - 99%
98   1   0
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
7,538
Likes
3,595
Location
Pangea
by the common-use logic, we should ban fire extinguishers and smoke detectors because they are barely "used"
 
Top Bottom