Let's not allow the antis to fool or trick us.
The term "weapons of war" essentially means ALL GUNS as every type of firearm has been used in "battlefield": Musket, revolver, bolt action, lever action, magazine fed semi-auto, etc.
So whenever antis mention banning "weapons of war", they ultimately mean banning all guns, regardless of what they "claim" for the moment.
Think about it - End game for antis is to ban our liberty, starting with banning of all guns. Let's not forget that.
As to our judicial reality, since the legislative and executive branches have failed to uphold the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights "for the people" over the decades, it's the judicial branch, particularly the US Supreme Court, that has started to ENFORCE the Second Amendment "for the people". As justice Gorsuch clearly stated in this interview,
it is the JOB of the SCOTUS to ENFORCE the Bill of Rights, "All of them" -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/
With DC v Heller, the Supreme Court has already ruled "that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
And now we get to address the "
Common Use" issue that includes auto loading firearms such as AR15, AK47, Mini14, etc. along with large capacity magazines originally and currently "
commonly used".
Here's Cornell Law School explanation of 2A "bearing arms" post DC v Heller (As with US Constitution being "updated" with amendments to reflect modern times, so should our "arms" be updated to reflect modern/improved technologies as expressed in Caetano v Massachusetts) -
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2
"The Second Amendment ...
civilians ...
were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time... the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory. Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in
District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars—that
the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals ... Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the
purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.
... Subsequently,
in Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Court emphasized that, under Heller, the protections of the Second Amendment extend to firearms that were not in existence at the time of the Framers."
And to me, this means, for self defense against multiple armed intruders,
the protections of 2A extend to firearms in common use like AR15s (which is the most popular long gun currently)
using 30+ capacity magazines to reduce/eliminate the "lethal pause" that judge Benitez pointed out.
Here are two recent thread discussions why citizens need "modern" and "improved" technology arms:
As to nonsensical magazine capacity limit, with "common use" argument and CA failing to provide sufficient justification for "arbitrarily" picking a limiting number of 10 rounds (It could have been 7, 5, 3 or even 1, take your random pick.
) prompted judge Benitez to write, "
So, how did California arrive at the notion that any firearm magazine size greater than a 10-round magazine is unacceptable?
It appears to be an arbitrary judgment ... The State does not ... say why California (or any jurisdiction, for that matter) place the limit at 10 ... The significance of 10 rounds, however, is not addressed
...
Federal law has no limit on permissible magazine size. In U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for firearm offenses ... a 'large capacity magazine' is defined for purposes of sentencing as a magazine 'that could accept more than 15 rounds of ammunition.'
A reasoned explanation or a considered judgment would tend to demonstrate why the 'fit' of a total ban on magazines larger than 10- rounds is reasonable or how the ban is narrowly tailored ... Surly, Turner deference does not mean a federal court is relegated to rubber-stamping a broad-based arbitrary incursion on a constitutional right founded on speculative line-drawing and without any sign of tailoring for fit."
And judge Benitez calling magazines "arms" throws a big wrench in the states' push to limit magazine capacity for law abiding citizens when he wrote:
"...
from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a 'lethal pause,' as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack.
In other words, the re-loading 'pause' the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are DISABLED, or who have ARTHRITIS, or who are trying to HOLD A PHONE IN THEIR OFF-HAND while attempting to call for police help.
The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show ... lack of reasonable fit."
And I am dying to hear how CA state will respond when question is asked why the state government is not working to protect disabled, elderly citizens protect themselves from being victimized.
Government provides wheelchair ramps and large print publications etc. to help the disabled and elderly citizens. Limiting magazine capacity is not helping the disabled or elderly. Government should be helping the disabled and elderly citizens better protect themselves from victimization by providing even greater capacity magazines and higher rate of fire devices like binary triggers along with noise suppression devices.
"
The district court in [Fyock v. Sunnyvale], found that 'magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds are in common use, and are therefore not dangerous and unusual.' ... The district court found that the large capacity magazines qualify as 'arms' for purposes of the Second Amendment." and ruled with judgement concluding, "
Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are 'arms.'"
So, since the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written by the founders to ENSURE the RIGHTS of the MINORITY, yes "we, the gun owners" are the minority in need of protection by the government; it's high time all branches of the government work to protect the physically disabled/weak, smaller stature, elderly citizens, female, etc. defend themselves instead of banning guns.
And IMO, all this talk of gun ban is actually bringing gun owners from all walks of life together to vote against the antis in 2020 to ensure the judicial future of our gun rights/2A for decades and generations.
