Video Highlights
- The common use test is a rule that allows the government to restrict access to firearms that are deemed both dangerous and unusual.
- A new interpretation of the common use test focuses on whether firearms are commonly used for self-defense.
- This new test has the potential to restrict access to firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes.
- Plaintiffs in the Banta v Ferguson case have effectively countered this argument, highlighting the importance of common use for self-defense.
- The burden of proof lies with the state to show that firearms commonly used for self-defense are actually used for unlawful purposes.
- The argument that technological advancements and mass shootings make past laws irrelevant is invalid, as current laws must consider the common use of firearms today.
Video Summary
Welcome to Washingtonville TV! In this video, we will be discussing the new common use test in gun control legislation and how to effectively combat it. The common use test is a rule that allows the government to restrict access to firearms that are deemed both dangerous and unusual. This rule was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia V Heller. According to this rule, firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes, including self-defense, cannot be banned outright.
However, we are now seeing a new interpretation of the common use test that focuses specifically on the common use for self-defense. This new test has the potential to restrict access to firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes. This dangerous argument is being used to support gun control legislation in various jurisdictions.
Two cases that illustrate the new common use for self-defense test are Oregon Firearms Federation V code Tech and Hartford v Ferguson. In the Oregon case, Judge Karen ermiger ruled that firearms, including those covered by a magazine ban, are constitutional because they have not been demonstrated to be in common use for self-defense. This ruling has set a precedent that is now being used in other jurisdictions.
The state of Washington, for example, is now citing Judge ermiger's ruling to argue that firearms must be in common use for self-defense in order to be protected by the Second Amendment. This dangerous argument has the potential to expand and restrict access to firearms even further.
However, plaintiffs in the Banta v Ferguson case have effectively countered this argument. They argue that the burden of proof lies with the state to show that firearms commonly used for self-defense are actually used for unlawful purposes. They also point out that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, not just to fire them in self-defense situations.
Plaintiffs in the Banta v Ferguson case also argue that the common use test is not a conjunctive test, as it is often portrayed. They emphasize that firearms must be highly unusual in society at large to fall within the historical tradition of restrictions on dangerous and unusual weapons.
Furthermore, the argument that past laws are irrelevant due to technological advancements and mass shootings is invalid. The plaintiffs correctly point out that the Founding Fathers contemplated the potential for technological advancements and mass shootings when they drafted the Second Amendment.
In conclusion, the new common use for self-defense test in gun control legislation is a dangerous argument that has the potential to restrict access to firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes. However, plaintiffs in the Banta v Ferguson case have effectively countered this argument, highlighting the importance of common use for self-defense. It is crucial for gun rights advocates to understand this new test and learn how to effectively combat it in order to protect our Second Amendment rights.
