HELLER:
Holding:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
2. ...Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition...would fail constitutional muster
CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment ex-tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”
-----
Handguns are "overwhelmingly cho[sen] for the lawful purpose of self-defense - and thus, "In common use" for "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".
Note that the "overwhelming choice" of handguns for a traditionally legal purpose, and not their actual numerical use, qualifies handguns as "in common use" for those purposes, and thus their possession and use is protected by the 2nd.
And so, according to the reasoning of the court, any class of firearm that is an "overwhelming choice" for any of the innumerable traditionally legal purposes of a firearm are similarly "in common use", and thus, their possession and use is protected by the the 2nd.
That is, a class of firearms need not be -actually- used some number of times to qualify as 'in common use' but be commonly -chosen- for said uses.
BUT, let us say "in common use" -does- require a demonstration of a certain number of -actual - uses for a given traditionally legal purpose of a firearm.
According to the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center, defensive firearm uses are "rare", at about 95,000 instances per year.
Self-Defense Gun Use is Rare, New VPC Study Confirms
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf
If we grant this 95,000 figure accurately represents the entirety of handguns used for self-defense, then the threshold to qualify for "common use" must be at or around 95,000 uses for traditionally lawful purposes per year, and so to qualify as "in common use" and thus, protected by the 2nd Amendment, there must be some demonstration that a given class of firearms is used at least that often.
In either case, the "in common use" bar is quite low.
So, I ask
What class of firearm is NOT "in common use", and how do you know?
Holding:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
2. ...Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition...would fail constitutional muster
CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment ex-tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”
-----
Handguns are "overwhelmingly cho[sen] for the lawful purpose of self-defense - and thus, "In common use" for "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".
Note that the "overwhelming choice" of handguns for a traditionally legal purpose, and not their actual numerical use, qualifies handguns as "in common use" for those purposes, and thus their possession and use is protected by the 2nd.
And so, according to the reasoning of the court, any class of firearm that is an "overwhelming choice" for any of the innumerable traditionally legal purposes of a firearm are similarly "in common use", and thus, their possession and use is protected by the the 2nd.
That is, a class of firearms need not be -actually- used some number of times to qualify as 'in common use' but be commonly -chosen- for said uses.
BUT, let us say "in common use" -does- require a demonstration of a certain number of -actual - uses for a given traditionally legal purpose of a firearm.
According to the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center, defensive firearm uses are "rare", at about 95,000 instances per year.
Self-Defense Gun Use is Rare, New VPC Study Confirms
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf
If we grant this 95,000 figure accurately represents the entirety of handguns used for self-defense, then the threshold to qualify for "common use" must be at or around 95,000 uses for traditionally lawful purposes per year, and so to qualify as "in common use" and thus, protected by the 2nd Amendment, there must be some demonstration that a given class of firearms is used at least that often.
In either case, the "in common use" bar is quite low.
So, I ask
What class of firearm is NOT "in common use", and how do you know?
