if you take this to the next level a "common use" law could preclude the introduction of any new cartridge or even any new weapon using an existing cartridge.
This is why it is necessary for those knowledgeable about "arms" to develop an acceptable taxonomy to help the courts in determining what is in "common use" I would argue that a semi-automatic rifle with a .50 bore is a "common weapon" and there is no reason for this to be considered an exceptional weapon. I feel strongly that a strict test of "exceptionalness" needs to be applied for restricting a constitutionally enumerated right rather than a "common use" test as outlined in Heller. ----- Original Message ---- From: C. D. Tavares <[email protected]> On Jun 4, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Raymond Kessler wrote: > Further, Heller seems to be limited to "weapons in common > use." .50 cal. Rifles are not in common use. I wonder why I don't see more discussion of the elephant in this particular room -- viz., Miller requires "common use" to protect a type of firearm, but many firearms not in "common use" are rare precisely due to pre-Miller laws that are at variance with the underlying logic of Miller. Seems to me that a ruling that "we will protect your right to own popular guns" isn't much different from a ruling that "we will protect your right to utter popular speech." _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
