Judge Kavanaugh - semi-auto rifles protected

[grayfox]

[JASmith]

Thanks! That is a concise statement and is largely encouraging.

I remain troubled, however, by the”common use” argument. That could make more difficult the legal status of defensive weapons derived frm emerging technologies.

[grayfox]

"Common use", yeah. I don't know if or where that has been defined judicially, or how extensive such usage must be in order to be "common." Being used for self-defense, hunting and other lawful uses is good since it codifies a majority-use test vice a "whatever a minority does to misuse something" test, especially in a discussion of rights... as for emerging technologies, I think of things like the stun gun, mace/pepper spray, laser-swords (jedi- LOL)(which may be invented in the future)... things that weren't even thought of 20, 50, 242 years ago.

"Common use", if it had been invoked as a standard the first couple of years after the lever-action rifle was invented, would not have spared such an "assault weapon" of the day (too new and too expensive for common folks at the time), same for the six-gun revolver, so yes there might be room for some concern

In truth technology is almost always ahead of the Law so this sets up or at least recognizes a tension between rights and emergent technology. But I'm not sure there is a good way to Not have that tension...

[grayfox]

His main point was simply to extend the 2008 test logically (not to invent or to introduce a new standard, however accurate or better it may have been) to a set of arms (semi-auto rifles) not specifically mentioned in the 2008 decision but stating there was no real difference constitutionally between the semi-auto handgun and semi-auto rifle; hence the legality as defined by the SC in the 2008 decision should extend to the case before them on semi-auto rifles.

[stanc]

Being used for self-defense, hunting and other lawful uses is good since it codifies a majority-use test...

I strongly disagree that codifying a "majority-use test" is good. The 2nd Amendment does not limit the RKBA only to arms which are in common use.

That's the kind of judicial thinking that resulted in the Miller decision, which effectively upheld the NFA, when it should've been ruled unconstitutional.

[StoneHendge]

I'll have to agree with Stan here! The opinion should have read:

"In Heller [the suit DC v. Heller, 2008], the Supreme Court held that handguns – the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic – are constitutionally protected because [the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.]

[grayfox]

I'm not quite ready to say that for me although I see why one could say it, my point was mainly that a) it is a defense against activist re-definitions to prohibit that which has been allowed and common for years (which the left is fond of doing) ... and b) I think K's point was not to make new points, rather to show the logical extension of the existing, SCOTUS one. O, and c) it probably has the weight of historical precedent as well, but I'm not well-versed on chapter-and-verse if that's true.

[stanc]

I'm not quite ready to say that for me although I see why one could say it, my point was mainly that a) it is a defense against activist re-definitions to prohibit that which has been allowed and common for years (which the left is fond of doing) ... and b) I think K's point was not to make new points, rather to show the logical extension of the existing, SCOTUS one. O, and c) it probably has the weight of historical precedent as well, but I'm not well-versed on chapter-and-verse if that's true.

Concur on points b and c, but not point a. "Common use" is itself a re-definition of what is covered by the 2nd Amendment.

[JASmith]

Concur on points b and c, but not point a. "Common use" is itself a re-definition of what is covered by the 2nd Amendment.

Well said!

[NugginFutz]

Well said!

[JASmith]

Nuggin,

I understand the confusion, but when someone, anyone, says something I strongly agree with, I must concur.

A public concurrence is especially needed when that somebody is one who I routinely disagree with.

[NugginFutz]

Nuggin,

I understand the confusion, but when someone, anyone, says something I strongly agree with, I must concur.

A public concurrence is especially needed when that somebody is one who I routinely disagree with.

Of course I understand, Joe. Further, I admire your ability to set aside previous exchanges and ignore outstanding sentiment.

I was just enjoying the chance to employ a favorite meme / clip.

[montana]

https://missoulian.com/opinion/columnists/kavanaugh-a-mixed-bag-on-nd-amendment/article_e4df9def-5685-543d-af5e-1e516fbe213c.html

[LRRPF52]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, as long as it's a commonly practiced religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear common use Arms, shall not be infringed.

Makes sense if you don't think about it.