View Full Version : Common Use
With so many AR type rifles having already been sold, continuing to being sold, and owned, does "common use" have any significant impact on passing future restrictions?
With so many AR type rifles having already been sold, continuing to being sold, and owned, does "common use" have any significant impact on passing future restrictions?
Common use should cause DDs, sbrs and machineguns to be removed from the nfa.
Both are extremely common and the standard rifle for militaries world-wide.
Can't be in common use if banned.
Much like the term I/we/they won't disarm law abiding citizens. If it is illegal then citizens are no longer law abiding.
You think reality matters to people working in shifts to kerp you fat, weak, ignorant, disarmed, and voiceless?
SomeOtherGuy
10-11-19, 09:46
What Firefly said.
ARs are 100% in common use, it's not even debatable among rational people, but have you noticed what insanity becomes doctrine on the left these days?
My question was does common use have any bearing on restrictions?
My question was does common use have any bearing on restrictions?
Some BS precedent set by the supreme court iirc. You cant ban stuff in common use, but the government says **** the constitution, we’ll ban what we want.
Imo it was a weak move by the SC to look like they were “keeping the other branches in check.”
It’s still flawed logic. Since common use constraints permit pre-emptive banning of of widgets that otherwise simply haven’t proliferated due to tech advancements or whatever.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why is it half the country just wants to chill after a hard day’s work, make love to their GF/power bottom, play retro video games, raise children, and live life while the other half is almost demanding guys to put on tiger stripes with necklaces made from the ears of communist heathens or don Hawaiian shirts, cook white MC booty shorts and NODs and not even boogaloo, not even hootenanny, but go full on Box Social with pyres of dead illuminating the night’s sky?
Like I’m good either way, I just wanna know why
My question was does common use have any bearing on restrictions?
Several instances in DC v. Heller
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” "
Can't be in common use if banned.
Much like the term I/we/they won't disarm law abiding citizens. If it is illegal then citizens are no longer law abiding.
That's what happened in the Maryland AWB/magazine case. The judge said defensive uses of ARs, etc. were so infrequent that regulating/banning them would have no impact on future defensive uses.
In practice, "common use" is whatever BATFE says it is. :(
In practice, "common use" is whatever BATFE says it is. :(
Common use ain’t so common then
Several instances in DC v. Heller
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” "
Which actually reads as, “limitation on shall not be infringed”. [emoji849]
Dangerous and unusual is also an entirely asinine construct.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Belmont31R
10-11-19, 20:13
Try suing the gov't over illegal surveillance or data collection. You can't because national security comes first over the BOR and the gov't will cite clearance & OPSEC to prevent discovery. Without discovery you don't have a case so they can do WTF they want while statist judges block you from obtaining evidence.
With guns they'll totally ignore the huge industry that has popped up revolving around AR15's over the last 15 years and use gov't restrictions as evidence of AR15's not being in common use. Something can't be in common use if its use is entirely banned, restricted, or leftist DA's will put a legit self defense case through the wringer to deter future self defense shootings. Then they say see its not in common use so bans are ok. Its circular logic they keep up to prevent actual case rulings striking down entire bans like the NFA or GCA.
Im not even that worried about the House or Senate. Judges have been out of control for decades, and same with the Federal prosector corps. Branches of govt breakdown when you have 'cross pollination' of agendas and people can go judge shopping to get the ruling they want. We also have district judges who shouldn't have authority outside of their area issuing national injunctions which is bullshit. 'Some judge in Hawaii' is a meme lol
With so many AR type rifles having already been sold, continuing to being sold, and owned, does "common use" have any significant impact on passing future restrictions?
No, many states already ban AR type rifles, so the common use argument has no bearing.
Belmont31R
10-11-19, 23:50
No, many states already ban AR type rifles, so the common use argument has no bearing.
Well in good ole USA legal fashion cases that go against the gov't take years to see a single ruling just to have the govt drop the case while cases that go against the Cheeto get nationwide rulings from district court judges in hours.
The few rulings we do get come from ban states where they say they're not in common use while ignoring they're not in common use because they're banned.
Diamondback
10-12-19, 01:09
Try suing the gov't over illegal surveillance or data collection. You can't because national security comes first over the BOR and the gov't will cite clearance & OPSEC to prevent discovery. Without discovery you don't have a case so they can do WTF they want while statist judges block you from obtaining evidence.
With guns they'll totally ignore the huge industry that has popped up revolving around AR15's over the last 15 years and use gov't restrictions as evidence of AR15's not being in common use. Something can't be in common use if its use is entirely banned, restricted, or leftist DA's will put a legit self defense case through the wringer to deter future self defense shootings. Then they say see its not in common use so bans are ok. Its circular logic they keep up to prevent actual case rulings striking down entire bans like the NFA or GCA.
Im not even that worried about the House or Senate. Judges have been out of control for decades, and same with the Federal prosector corps. Branches of govt breakdown when you have 'cross pollination' of agendas and people can go judge shopping to get the ruling they want. We also have district judges who shouldn't have authority outside of their area issuing national injunctions which is bullshit. 'Some judge in Hawaii' is a meme lol
I believe the technical term is "Self-Licking Ice Cream Cone."
I’m not a PSA customer nor have I ever had interest in their stuff. However I did find this comment from the owner during an interview interesting. He may be bull shitting about his motives but in theory I’d have to agree I guess ...
https://www.arbuildjunkie.com/palmetto-state-armory-story-so-far/
“It’s About Producing Freedom”
And that’s really a goal. It’s not about making money, it’s about producing freedom. We could get more for the stuff than we do now, but I figure if everybody can get one of these, or multiple of these, they will be harder to ban later on. If it’s in “common use”, it’s really hard to ban.
So, what I tell people is “there is a price point Palmetto State Armory could charge that we choose not to charge.” Because we’re not trying to maximize profits, we’re trying to maximize freedom. We’ve already made good money doing this.
Palmetto State Armory employs about 750 employees. We do the best we can for them. But we have people ask, “why don’t you raise prices?” It’s because I want to have more of it out there. I don’t need another fancy car in the garage or a house on the ocean.
“I would rather have a country be able to hold off tyranny for a generation. And I can do that if I spread enough freedom out there. If I die at 85, I think that would be a much better legacy than having a mansion on the beach. If I can be the guy who helped put it out there everywhere, then that’s the best legacy I can have.”
I’m not a PSA customer nor have I ever had interest in their stuff. However I did find this comment from the owner during an interview interesting. He may be bull shitting about his motives but in theory I’d have to agree I guess ...
https://www.arbuildjunkie.com/palmetto-state-armory-story-so-far/
“It’s About Producing Freedom”
And that’s really a goal. It’s not about making money, it’s about producing freedom. We could get more for the stuff than we do now, but I figure if everybody can get one of these, or multiple of these, they will be harder to ban later on. If it’s in “common use”, it’s really hard to ban.
So, what I tell people is “there is a price point Palmetto State Armory could charge that we choose not to charge.” Because we’re not trying to maximize profits, we’re trying to maximize freedom. We’ve already made good money doing this.
Palmetto State Armory employs about 750 employees. We do the best we can for them. But we have people ask, “why don’t you raise prices?” It’s because I want to have more of it out there. I don’t need another fancy car in the garage or a house on the ocean.
“I would rather have a country be able to hold off tyranny for a generation. And I can do that if I spread enough freedom out there. If I die at 85, I think that would be a much better legacy than having a mansion on the beach. If I can be the guy who helped put it out there everywhere, then that’s the best legacy I can have.”
This is what I was driving at. mrgunnandgear has mentioned this before. I just wonder if it will or has made a difference. At any rate I applaud the effort.
This is what I was driving at. mrgunnandgear has mentioned this before. I just wonder if it will or has made a difference. At any rate I applaud the effort.
The opinion of YouTube personalities matter why?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The opinion of YouTube personalities matter why?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If I recall correctly, Mr. G&G mentioned the position stated by PSA so it wasn't his opinion.
The opinion of YouTube personalities matter why?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My question wasn’t about opinions. It was whether or not common use has had any impact on the possibility of future restrictions. And I thought it would be a good discussion topic.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.