The Fatal Flaw of 'In Common Use'

 Yesterday, at Ammoland David Codrea had a must read piece illustrating, and I think providing evidence of the truth of his belief that the "in common use" test used by the Heller court was basically flawed. You can view his article at Chinese Coil Gun Could Prove Fatal Flaw in 'Common Use' Argument.

“State-owned arms maker China South Industries Group (CSGC) has released footage of its electromagnetic coil gun,” Interesting Engineering claimed Sunday. “Allegedly capable of firing 3,000 rounds per minute, the prototype represents a major technical leap in portable directed-energy weaponry.”

...snip...

“This bullpup gun uses coins as bullets,” a two-year-old video accompanying the story explains. “It is totally legal because there is no gunpowder, and the output power is limited.”

That would even make it outside the purview of ATF. Clearly, whoever presumed “total” legality did not take into account the Democrat mania for citizen disarmament. And the output power can be increased. Let these things hit the market and watch how fast demands to “Close the rail gun loophole” translate into regulatory oversight and outright bans on civilian ownership. Except for the “Only Ones,” of course.

And what about the Second Amendment? They are arms, after all. This is where our “gun rights leaders” may have painted us into a corner, by seizing on the criteria of being “in common use at the time” as the standard to determine if a gun ban violates the Second Amendment. It was never intended as a popularity contest. Since no innovation ever begins “in common use,” a government with the power to do so can ban all new weapon developments from those they would rule, retaining them exclusively for itself. Remember the core purpose of the Second Amendment. To argue the Founders thought sending an outmatched yeomanry to their slaughter would be “necessary to the security of a free State” is insane.

I encourage gentle readers to read the entire article. The anti-gun cracktivists will argue that the founders never imagined rail guns and energy weapons when they penned the Second Amendment. But of course, they would have endorsed those things as being within the scope of the Second Amendment. Just as they couldn't imagine television and social media, but they would have endorsed those as being within the scope of the First Amendment. Codrea is correct that at some point, the SCOTUS will have to confront the real purpose of the Second Amendment and give it its due in protecting our fundamental rights, or else give up on the idea of America.