Sunny Boy wrote: ↑Fri. May. 26, 2023 12:26 pm
I doubt SCOTUS will ever make fully automatic military weapons legal without the present special Fed licensing because they do not meet the "common use" criteria like AR-15 does.
Paul
According to a quick google search there are > 600,000 machine guns in citizens hands. Does that equal "common use"; I think so. With the recent Taser related case in 2021 (if I recall) SCOTUS found 200K in use as being "in common use". So 200K number is likely the upper limit; perhaps 10,000 would be the lower limit but automatic rifles are the bulk of the automatic guns so they clearly meet "in common use". The common use test is for outright bans; you can buy automatic guns today ~ but the question may bring up if people and make their own and if manufactures can make them again for our use (the manufacture of machine guns for us was stopped recently, between1960s or 1990s - so just recently).
The licensing scheme needs a historical analysis to see if that passes muster; again there were no registration requirements for guns until the NGA in the 1930s-well beyond the time set by SCOTUS to consider ~ so that's clearly unconstitutional.
The test now to see if a gun law violates the 2nd amendment is very simple now.
1st) the assumption is that any gun law is unconstitutional and the gov't has the burden to show it is not constitutional (like a 4th amendment search without a warrant or PC - all other searches are deemed unconstitutional until proven to be within an exception)
2nd) Does the law touch on a 2nd amendment right (now governments claim that many laws do not ~ a losing argument 99% of time)
3rd) For a ban, if the gun is in common use, then the law is unconstitutional; no further analysis is needed
4th) For other laws not a ban but regulates the right, then historical laws must have been common and addressing the current law where such regulation from the time of 1791 had a similar law.
Folks should read the arguments governments are using-its comical. The only "wins" in cases has been when a judge employs a "balancing of state interests" which is not allowed anymore.. a recent case by a Biden appointed judge decided a law had no historical basis and found the law unconstitutional & another Obummer appointed judge did the same in a Colorado town's salty gun case due to the "common use" reason.
If Sunny Boy has different information I'd be happy to look at it.