Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

The judge explicitly describes keeping a gun in your nightstand for 30 years as "commonly using it for 30 years" even if you only fired it once. Or even if you only brandished it in self defense and never fired it. For anyone not familiar, the "common use" standard is why tasers are legal in the USA. Lots of people had them before grabbers tried to ban them, ergo it was ruled that they were protected by the 2A. Today's ruling is a HUGE deal because it creates the precedent that:

1) Simply having X weapon, gun part, etc in widespread lawful possession means it's in common use. And the taser case was low hundreds of thousands, so the bar is low.

2) X arms-related thing in common use is protected by the 2A.

3) Ergo this is a slam-dunk precedent for the 2A protecting unrestricted access to machine guns, silencers, SBRs, etc because those are far more common than tasers were at the time. The 1934 and 1986 NFA might get the boot in our lifetime Poalers.

The judge explicitly describes keeping a gun in your nightstand for 30 years as "commonly using it for 30 years" *even if you only fired it once*. Or even if you only brandished it in self defense and never fired it. For anyone not familiar, the "common use" standard is why tasers are legal in the USA. Lots of people had them before grabbers tried to ban them, ergo it was ruled that they were protected by the 2A. Today's ruling is a HUGE deal because it creates the precedent that: 1) Simply having X weapon, gun part, etc in widespread lawful possession means it's in common use. And the taser case was low hundreds of thousands, so the bar is low. 2) X arms-related thing in common use is protected by the 2A. 3) Ergo this is a slam-dunk precedent for the 2A protecting *unrestricted access* to machine guns, silencers, SBRs, etc because those are far more common than tasers were at the time. The 1934 and 1986 NFA might get the boot in our lifetime Poalers.

(post is archived)

[–] • 1 pt

This is an unconstitutional precedent. The very concept that civilian common use is required is by itself is unconstitutional. The second amendment does not require it and does not support it. Is it arms? Yes? It is allowed. Period. Anything in common use by the military is explicitly allowed by the second amendment. This is, explicitly, it's purpose.

The test is a lie, a fraud, and a trap. Only supported by evil, corrupt judges. No such constitutional test exists. Period. Any judge who claims otherwise is a traitor.

What this really is saying, all future arms are barred from civilian use.

[–] • 3 pts

The very concept that civilian common use is required

It's normal for judges to limit their ruling to the scope of the trial. The judge states that civilian common use is Constitutional, and as an aside makes a lengthy argument for the Constitutionality of all bearable arms including machine guns, military weapons, etc...but points out that the trial isnt about those.

The reason for this is that judges arent dictators. If you bring a LCM case to trial, the judge can rule on LCMs and related matters such as magazine disconnects, ammunition storage, ammunition sales, etc. The judge cant wander off onto something unrelated like the constitutionality of destructive devices or speed limits.

[–] • 3 pts (edited )

The judge's ruling does not make "common use" a requirement, its the opposite. He is rejecting common use as a "means test" because that is the justification California tried to use to impose the ban.

California posed the "commonly used" angle by citing a statistician that said 2.2 rounds was the most common number of bullets fired in a self defense scenario:

Because more than 10 rounds in the average situation are not being fired for self-defense, the argument goes, magazines holding more than 10 rounds are not used or needed for self-defense. And because the Second Amendment protects (according to the State) only those arms commonly “used” for self-defense, the State says larger capacity magazines are not commonly “used,” and therefore they are not protected arms

He then rejects it by first noting that "used" really means "fired", and then:

The Supreme Court has not said that the actual firing of a gun is any part of the test. Indeed, the Second Amendment does not say that the right of the People to keep only such firearms as they actually shoot, shall not be infringed.

[–] • 1 pt

Thank you for the correction.