In the Heller decision we find this:
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
This is where the “common use” test comes from. This test is used by the forces of good to claim standard capacity magazines and semi-automatic firearms are protected from government restrictions.
But yet, there have been some cases where Federal courts have claimed AR-15s and AK-47 do not meet the “common use” test.
24/7 Wall St. has the list of the 50 Most Popular Guns of All Time. The AR-15 comes in at number four and the AK-47 at number 1.
As usual, the anti-gun forces have to lie and cheat to win.
And that ‘common use’ is referring to all users. At the time, the arms in common use by both the civilian citizenry, Militia and Military was the same.
Miller: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174
8
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
That Heller quote misstates the Miller decision, misbegotten though it is. Miller doesn’t limit the RKBA to militia weapons at all. Instead, it says that the 2nd Amendment particularly protects such weapons. That’s a big difference; it means that something being a militia weapon is convincing evidence that it would be protected, but it doesn’t at all say or mean that ONLY such weapons are protected.
Is that quote accurate? I know judges rarely understand the plain English words of the Constitution, but I didn’t expect Heller to be so drastically wrong.
Open up the Heller decision and search for those words. It’s there, plus more context to cover your concerns.
Common use or no. Militia use or no. They might just as easily said the only protected arms are ones that can be carried, or able to bear if you will.
Both seem very prejudicial. As a common use test would mean AR15’s would never reached the civilian market.
Militia use would be exclusive of the “Right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
All of it is flat out bigotry against some perceived threat to power. A power I might add that was usurped in the first place.
And stands completely against the American doctrine of being judged for one’s crimes, committed. Not something someone might do, or could do.
Is their one judge on the face of this planet that would tell you it’s OK to punish them because they have the ability to infringe on someone rights somewhere, somehow?
Gun control laws are exactly that. Suppositions of a crime. Not an actual one.
Rights to them or no.