MSR not common use....?

[Tirod]

Just to poke the embers, does the court consider what LEO's use in determining "common use?" Because they are in possession of a lot of full auto M16's. The auto part isn't my point - the fact it is an "assault" rifle in every other respect and seen in daily use in many metros is. Call out a SERT team for a hazardous entry, you have black rifles all over the neighborhood in patrolmen's hands controlling the scene.

Again, "common use" is a term viewed by a perspective from 30 years ago. Then a shotgun or lever action was common, and Police had them. Now, the AR is common, and that's what we see. What keeps perps from getting their hands on them at the local level is more related to a lack of funds to acquire them. Even stolen they aren't cheap, unlike handguns. And MSR owners are more aware of what to do safeguarding their rifles, using security cabinets and safes, plus not showing them off. The gun racks moved out of the truck window and down behind the seat.

Not forgetting over 20 million prior service men and women who were trained, shot, and carried M16's over a three year enlistment. It may not have been their primary tool, but they certainly were taught how to use it.

It comes to mind that the concept the AR15 isn't in common use springs from the propaganda arm of the antigunners. It's basically trying to circumvent the realization in the public's eye that it actually IS in common use. So, the Big Lie is trotted out and they attempt to put another nail in the coffin.

Ak-47s, HK91's, FNFAL's, AUG's, and lot others have been imported for decades. S&W, Remington, Ruger, Mossberg, and not to leave out, Colt, all offer them alongside their traditional guns. And those traditional models have been slowly disappearing in the last two decades. Manual action guns are a smaller part of the market now.

I don't see any determination that MSR's aren't in common use being a slam dunk. What the people see being used by those in authority is exactly what they want. In America, we can and will buy the same guns as LEO's and the military, because we want the same status. It has a lot to do with the social aspect of "face" than "Rights."

I've seen very few gun stores that don't sell MSR's in some form or other. Same for black powder rifles, which brings up a comparison - do we think they are in common use? I suspect that MSR's outsell them by quite a bit.

 

[rbernie]

When WalMart sells it, it's hard to claim that it's not in common use.

 

[JSH1]

As I said before, the debate is not whether a particular weapon is in common use. It is whether the regulation is "reasonable". This is from the Chu report:

"The District of Columbia amended its firearms regulations after the Heller decision and enacted new firearms regulations including an assault weapons ban that is similar to California’s. In 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision in Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II) which upheld the District’s ban on certain semiautomatic rifles and LCAFDs. Under the “common use” factor delineated in Heller, the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that “it was clear enough in the record that certain semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds are indeed in ‘common use.’” However, the court could not conclude definitely whether the weapons are “commonly used or are useful specifically for self-defense or hunting” such that they “meaningfully affect the right to keep and bear arms.” Therefore, the court went on to analyze the bans under a two stepped approach to determine their validity under the Second Amendment.

Under this approach, the court first asks whether a particular provision impinges upon a right protected by the Second Amendment as historically understood. If it does, then it goes on to determine whether the provision passes muster under the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny. Assuming that the ban impinged on the right protected under Heller (i.e., to possess certain arms for lawful purposes such as individual self-defense or hunting), the court found that such regulations should be reviewed under intermediate scrutiny because the prohibition “does not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their ability to defend themselves.” Under intermediate scrutiny, the government has the burden of showing that there is a substantial relationship or reasonable “fit” between the regulation and the important governmental interest “in protecting police officers and controlling crime.” The D.C. Circuit held that the District carried this burden and that the evidence demonstrated that a ban on both semiautomatic assault rifles and LCAFDs “is likely to promote the Government’s interest in crime control in the densely populated urban area that is the District of Columbia.”

 

[JRH6856]

And what is the current status of Heller II?

 

[JSH1]

It was remanded back to the district court. Heller also has a 3rd cause pending right now challenging DC's gun registry. (Heller III)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...llenges-dcs-gun-registration-files-/?page=all

 

[Carl N. Brown]

However, the court could not conclude definitely whether the weapons are “commonly used or are useful specifically for self-defense or hunting” such that they “meaningfully affect the right to keep and bear arms.”

Another traditional, lawful use of firearms is civilian marksmanship training, especially for those who may volunteer or be conscripted in time of national emergency. As Miller sorta acknowledged, if anything is protected under the 2A it is the military service rifle useful for military training.

 

[JRH6856]

I thoght Heller II was waiting for SCOTUS to accept or deny cert.

Peruta is worth watching as well. One of the things the majority took strong issue with was the lower standards of scrutiny used by other circuits which allowed them to uphold laws that would not withstand the higher standards a core right requires. The 9th panel went so far as to say the other circuits were in error as a result. The Court in Heller II uses the same lowered scrutiny that the 9th rejects.

 

[JSH1]

Peruta v San Diego was about concealed carry and was argued under the equal protection clause. It is worth watching but I doubt it will play a role in cases involving magazine limits.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The only ban that has been overturned is the Federal ban and that was accomplished in the ballot box not the courtroom.

It was not overturned, and was never on the ballot for popular vote. It had a 10 year expiration date, which lapsed 09/04.

 

[JSH1]

Poor choice of words on my part. The federal ban is the only assault rifle ban that has gone away after it was passed. Yes, it expired after 10 years but only because the votes were not there to renew it.

Most things aren't on the ballot for popular vote. The people vote for their representatives at the local, state and federal level.

 

[JRH6856]

Peruta v San Diego was about concealed carry and was argued under the equal protection clause. It is worth watching but I doubt it will play a role in cases involving magazine limits.

I know what Peruta is about. It doesn't change the relevance of the comments regarding scrutiny, which is not about concealed carry but about how to properly assess how any restrictions impact a core right.

 

[JSH1]

Sorry wrong thread