AW: Wilson v. Cook County

[Falconis]

There was no 18 or 21 yr old age restriction on buying mags before 2000.

However, if you were 4 yrs old it might smell funny.

My dad bought them for me knowing how bad this law sucked back then? I don't know. Just trying to come up with excuses.

[ccmc]

The AR-15 in no special configuration is in common use too outside of this state yet they continue down the path, whats to stop them from passing legislation restricting the capicity of clips to less tahn 10 rounds, whats there to prevent one of these guys from passing a bill in the CA legislature taht says nothing over 5 or 6 rounds making a semiautomatic equal to that of a revolver in capacity

AFAIK if you hunt with magazine fed semi-auto rifles you're restricted to five round mags (I'm not a hunter so please correct me if I'm wrong), so that's one theoretical path in that direction.

[boxcab]

Handguns were exceedingly uncommon in D.C. Commonness isn't about the area where the arm is banned. It's about what the majority of folks in the US consider common.

There is tons of evidence - much provided by the other side - that ARs/AKs etc are very common.

The classed of weapons re semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic pistols, and semiautomatic shotguns. Each are very common as even where "AWs" are banned, there remain many of each still available. It's hard to ban the M1 or the M1 Carbine...

-Gene

Gene,

Thanks for your insights.

From the bolded above, what limits us to "in common use in the US"? Why not "in common use in the world"? What leads you to the US limitation?


-Boxcab

[Patrick-2]

Just because a rifle is not in common use in CA BECAUSE of the CA AWB does not mean they are not in common use in the rest of the country, which they are.

Yes, let me +1 this comment for my California friends: There is a world outside California.

As Gene noted, Heller involved a city banning all handguns, yet the Supreme Court specifically protected them in Heller due to their "common use and the overwhelming preference" people have for them in self-defense situations.

Evil Black Rifles are exceptionally popular in the USA and quite common. California will not be able to hang its hat on this hook for long.

[ccmc]

Yes, let me +1 this comment for my California friends: There is a world outside California.

As Gene noted, Heller involved a city banning all handguns, yet the Supreme Court specifically protected them in Heller due to their "common use and the overwhelming preference" people have for them in self-defense situations.

Evil Black Rifles are exceptionally popular in the USA and quite common. California will not be able to hang its hat on this hook for long.

Very true. At my local range 30 round EBRs are the majority of what you see on the rifle side.

[ddestruel]

AFAIK if you hunt with magazine fed semi-auto rifles you're restricted to five round mags (I'm not a hunter so please correct me if I'm wrong), so that's one theoretical path in that direction.

Hopefully the attempt to divide firearms into the classification of hunting or otherwise will be made mute soon, it strikes me as a final gasping attempt by various entities to try and divide and conquer the 2nd ammendment debate again.

All can be used for anything.

[Maestro Pistolero]

It's about what the majority of folks in the US consider common

I would expand that. What's protected is also what is in common use by anyone who might attack and invade us that should be the standard. Our small arms must be at least equal in performance characteristics to those that a foreign invading force would use today. Otherwise the amendment is useless for it's only stated purpose.

[aklover_91]

Handguns were exceedingly uncommon in D.C. Commonness isn't about the area where the arm is banned. It's about what the majority of folks in the US consider common.

There is tons of evidence - much provided by the other side - that ARs/AKs etc are very common.

The classed of weapons re semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic pistols, and semiautomatic shotguns. Each are very common as even where "AWs" are banned, there remain many of each still available. It's hard to ban the M1 or the M1 Carbine...

-Gene

Just out of curiosity, would we ever be able to challenge the in common use bit? Considering if it wasn't for artificial limiters put on by NFA and GCA '86, our 'in common use' would be M16's and not AR's.

[Maestro Pistolero]

Just out of curiosity, would we ever be able to challenge the in common use bit? Considering if it wasn't for artificial limiters put on by NFA and GCA '86, our 'in common use' would be M16's and not AR's.

That's a tough case to make. Even before the registration was closed, NFA weapons weren't that common in the big picture. They would be more common today if the registration was open, to be sure.

NFA challenges are down the road. And I think in the end, there will need to be SOME path to acquiring F/A, even though they may be heavily regulated.

Heavily regulated and banned are two different animals. As far as F/A goes, I think the former may survive but not the latter. A case could be made that we have an effective ban, as F/A is unavailable to anyone but the wealthiest among us, because the supply has been cut off, driving the price out of reach. Of course, that was the intent.

Again, that fight is for another day.

[Maestro Pistolero]

I would add that F/A small arms are in definitively common use worldwide, not just by military but individuals, militias, and paramilitary.

Their ubiquity on the world stage makes them protected, because they are exactly the small arms that would be used by any foreign invader.

The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to inferior arms to repel foreign-born tyranny.

[aklover_91]

That's a tough case to make. Even before the registration was closed, NFA weapons weren't that common in the big picture. They would be more common today if the registration was open, to be sure.

NFA challenges are down the road. And I think in the end, there will need to be SOME path to acquiring F/A, even though they may be heavily regulated.

Heavily regulated and banned are two different animals. As far as F/A goes, I think the former may survive but not the latter. A case could be made that we have an effective ban, as F/A is unavailable to anyone but the wealthiest among us, because the supply has been cut off, driving the price out of reach. Of course, that was the intent.

Again, that fight is for another day.

That's kind of my point, though. If we had never had NFA or another kind of manufactured road block and small arms were allowed to develop and be purchased normally, no one would have bothered to make semi-automatic only versions of infantry rifles. We wouldn't have got the SP-1, we'd have got real M16's.

In my mind, it seems shaky ground to say it's OK to ban arms that aren't in common use, only because before that ruling they decided not to allow them to be in common use.

It strikes me as awfully similar to that bunk about how they can regulate something that isn't a part of interstate commerce because by not being a part of interstate commerce it's absence has an effect on interstate commerce.

[Untamed1972]

I would expand that. What's protected is also what is in common use by anyone who might attack and invade us that should be the standard. Our small arms must be at least equal in performance characteristics to those that a foreign invading force would use today. Otherwise the amendment is useless for it's only stated purpose.

Or to those weapons in use by....oh lets say a "tyranical gov't" perhaps

[wash]

When I was young, they wouldn't let me in to gun shows alone so I bought all of my magazines in the parking lot.

[Maestro Pistolero]

Or to those weapons in use by....oh lets say a "tyranical gov't" perhaps

But those evil foreigners being painted as the culprits is a much more palatable argument to make. Because our own government would never really become tyrannical right? Of course, it's dissuading tyrants, whether foreign or domestic that lies at the core purpose of anti-tyranny.

But it's good to look at what threats our 2A weapons are there to oppose, so we can know what weapons the amendment protects. A global view broadens the scope a bit.

[Purple K]

There is no 5-round limit for hunting in California. That's an old wive's-tail. You can hunt with a 30-round magazine as long as you own it legally.

AFAIK if you hunt with magazine fed semi-auto rifles you're restricted to five round mags (I'm not a hunter so please correct me if I'm wrong), so that's one theoretical path in that direction.