MSR not common use....?

[SilentStalker]

So, I was having a conversation today with one of our new executive editors that has worked for some serious news agencies and publications in his career. He has recently been converted in the last few years. Anyways while we were talking about what is happening in CT and the fact that he needs to move out of DC we got on the topic of how a case, like that of the legality of CTs new law, not going to the USSC might be a good thing. The reason? His argument was that he was worried that they might try to say the MSR or AR whatever you want to call it is not in common use. Can someone explain to me how anyone could think that this rifle is not in common use? I could argue that it is probably the most abundant rifle in the country. I might lose that argument but there has got to be some serious amount of owners of these things across the US. I just don't see how they could possibly not be in common use.

 

[HammsBeer]

Not in common use? So all these Ar's that flew off the shelves last year just vanished into thin air? Any look through a brownells AR catalog tells me that the AR is here to stay and more popular than ever. Most gun shops have half the display space devoted to MSR's. Some shooters have multiple AR's and thats all they own, with no blued steel or walnut in sight.

 

[SilentStalker]

I agree! So, I don't see how this could even be an argument if it goes to the USSC!

 

[medalguy]

Depends on the meaning of the word "is". Sound familiar? It all depends on who is defining the term "common use" I suppose. It's hard to find much else at gun shows these days EXCEPT black rifles. Any popular sporting goods catalog has page after page of black rifles. Most sporting goods stores have shelves full of black rifles. Ranges and the woods are full of black rifles. That's how I would define "common use" but I suppose someone else might have a different slant on it.

 

[PedalBiker]

US vs Miller proved the US Govt. gets to make their own reality. While the military is buying short barreled shotguns for trench warfare they claim short barreled shotguns have no military value. It didn't help that Miller didn't mount a defense, but even so neither party to a court action should be allowed to lie with impunity. Lying is supposed to be wrong, even in court.

 

[danez71]

Not in common use? So all these Ar's that flew off the shelves last year just vanished into thin air?

More than that... they've been sold to us regular citizens since, what, the 50's?

 

[JSH1]

Common use will not be the issue. The issue will be what the court decides is "reasonable regulation". Banning a whole class of weapons won't fly. Limiting certain features like magazine size most likely will.

 

[Skribs]

Because on TV law abiding citizens have bolt guns and revolvers if theyre not ex-special-forces.

 

[Drail]

Yeah, they seem to think that "shall not be infringed" still gives them a lot of room for "reasonable common sense" legislation. And if we the people don't agree then we're just being "unreasonable" and lacking "common sense" and "we the people" just don't know what best for us. Some famous guy once wrote - "The first thing we do let's kill all the lawyers" I'm down with that. Everyone needs to remember exactly why the American Revolution was started. I think it had something to do with citizens possessing firearms (or something like that). I think it was up there in New England somewhere. I think they were referred to as "revolutionaries". Or something like that. History just repeats itself over and over.

 

[Ranger Roberts]

Sorry to get off track, but whenever I see MSR my mind jumps back into military terms and I get all jumbled thinking about the Main Supply Route... haha.

Anyway:

Common use will not be the issue. The issue will be what the court decides is "reasonable regulation". Banning a whole class of weapons won't fly. Limiting certain features like magazine size most likely will.

I think this hit the nail on the head.

 

[Midwest]

Because on TV law abiding citizens have bolt guns and revolvers if theyre not ex-special-forces.

Yes, and the owners have valid permits for those bolt rifles and revolvers. All the guns are registered, and most importantly 'shell casings' can be used to identify a gun in seconds through 'the database'.

 

[Owen]

US vs Miller proved the US Govt. gets to make their own reality. While the military is buying short barreled shotguns for trench warfare they claim short barreled shotguns have no military value. It didn't help that Miller didn't mount a defense, but even so neither party to a court action should be allowed to lie with impunity. Lying is supposed to be wrong, even in court.

All it proved is that if you don't show up for court, you will lose your case. Courts decide on the arguments presented to them. If one side says "blah" and the other side is absent, then "blah" stands.

 

[goon]

All it proved is that if you don't show up for court, you will lose your case. Courts decide on the arguments presented to them. If one side says "blah" and the other side is absent, then "blah" stands.

I'm not a legal historian, but from what I've read, the story with U.S. v. Miller involves some pretty hairy stuff bordering on outright misconduct. Not showing up isn't the whole story.

 

[JRH6856]

Yeah, they seem to think that "shall not be infringed" still gives them a lot of room for "reasonable common sense" legislation. And if we the people don't agree then we're just being "unreasonable" and lacking "common sense" and "we the people" just don't know what best for us. Some famous guy once wrote - "The first thing we do let's kill all the lawyers" I'm down with that. Everyone needs to remember exactly why the American Revolution was started. I think it had something to do with citizens possessing firearms (or something like that). I think it was up there in New England somewhere. I think they were referred to as "revolutionaries". Or something like that. History just repeats itself over and over.

SCOTUS has confirmed that even under our Constitution, all rights are legitimately subject to restriction. We don't have to like it, and I don't like it, but it is what it is. The only appeal from SCOTUS is to The People and the only way The People can overrule SCOTUS (short of a revolution) is through the amendment process. But I don't see either happening anywhere. So it still is what is is.

 

[Tirod]

"Common use" is supported by more than the AR. It's not even an AR issue. It includes the AK clones, HK, FNFAL, Valmet, M1A, Galil, Beretta ARX, Tavor, AUG, and dozens of others. They have been sold for use as hunting rifles since the first semi auto Colt appeared in a hunting magazine ad in the early '60s.

The opposite view is that there is no legal reason to ban a firearm in uncommon use - and the trend there shows a lot of older manual action guns the public would consider "OK" are actually darn rare to find in the hunting fields now. Few take rare antiques or collectibles out in bad weather to chance ruining what little good finish remains. In the overall trend of gun use, the conventionally accepted hunting rifle is quickly becoming uncommon. That kind of situation supported by the annual gun sales as collected by the BATF would definitely be presented as evidence.

"Common use" is really a concept that reflects a lack of awareness of what guns are really selling in America today. What we see on the gun racks of traditional retailers is a skewed example of what is really selling nationwide. If a certain type of firearm isn't visible in the gun racks, it may not be there because it's in high demand and there's a lot of turnover. The SLOW sellers take up space in the rack.

Don't look at what you see, look at what you aren't seeing.

 

[GlowinPontiac]

Even if the courts find that CT cannot ban the AR15 by name because it is in common use it is still covered under our blanket AWB that says even a pistol grip means the gun is banned.

 

[JRH6856]

How is "pistol-grip" defined?

 

[CoalTrain49]

Common use will not be the issue. The issue will be what the court decides is "reasonable regulation". Banning a whole class of weapons won't fly. Limiting certain features like magazine size most likely will.

Common use was acknowledged by the fed district court regarding the CT AWB.

Covello, agreeing with the plaintiffs, concluded that the weapons and magazines are commonly owned and legally used in Connecticut and elsewhere. But he parted company with the plaintiffs when he wrote that the state's ownership and sales ban is justified when the government's goal of reducing violence is measured against the ban's impingement on Second Amendment rights.

So common use doesn't matter. This is just a district court ruling but SC is just as likely not going to step in and declare an AWB unconstitutional because of common use, or anything else for that matter. The door is now wide open for any state in the 2nd district to put an AWB in place if they haven't already.

 

[JSH1]

This is just a district court ruling but SC is just as likely not going to step in and declare an AWB unconstitutional because of common use, or anything else for that matter. The door is now wide open for any state in the 2nd district to put an AWB in place if they haven't already.

The door opened 25 years ago when CA passed their AWB and magazine limit. It was reaffirmed when the Federal ban passed along with 8 more states and DC. None of these bans have been overturned in court despite numerous legal challenges. The only ban that has been overturned is the Federal ban and that was accomplished in the ballot box not the courtroom.

 

[JRH6856]

So common use doesn't matter. This is just a district court ruling but SC is just as likely not going to step in and declare an AWB unconstitutional because of common use, or anything else for that matter.

SCOTUS will not "step in" in any event as courts to do not act sué sponté (of their own accord). It remains to be seen how they will rule if a case is brought before them and argued successfully.

 

[JSH1]

It is also important to remember that just because a case hasn't gone to the US Supreme Court doesn't mean it isn't settled law. At each step in the appeals process the next higher court has to agree to hear the case. If the appeals court refuses to hear the case the lower court's ruling stands and the matter is settled.

 

[JRH6856]

If the appeals court refuses to hear the case the lower court's ruling stands and the matter is settled within that circuit.

Fixed it for you.

 

[JSH1]

That is true. The Supreme Court would not get involved unless another circuit rules and the same issue with an opposite result.

I found an interesting report from the Congressional Research Service on the legal rulings pertaining to assault rifle bans. It was prepared when the most recent federal ban was being considered.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42957.pdf

 

[JRH6856]

The Chu report. OK, What did you find interesting about it?

 

[JSH1]

It has who made the challenge, where, on what grounds, and how the court ruled. Like I said, it is a good summary. No a lot of detail but one could always look up the individual cases for the details.