The Wrong Damned Argument

"The firearms here are without question some of the most commonly used. One out of nine guns sold since the invention of AR-type rifles is an AR rifle." [More]

Fine, but that's tangential to the core "common use" issue.

The function of the militia, defined as “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense [and] bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time,” was — and is — to field citizen soldiers. And these citizens bore arms that were suitable for that purpose, “ordinary military equipment” intended to be taken into “common defense” battles. They came with the intent to match and best a professional military threat.

From U.S. v. Miller, the court looked for "“some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

Why isn't lawyer James Vogts reminding the judges of that?  And why don't they already know it?

Or do they?

This Day in History: April 4

It appears to me that Light Blunderbusses on account of the quantity of shot they will carry, will be preferable to Carbines, for Dragoons, as the Carbines only carry a single ball especially in case of close action.

What was that Miller decision again?

Oh, yeah:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.