The next time some brain dead moron tries saying that the Second Amendment only applies to muskets, please refer them to Caetano v. Massachusetts 577 U.S. 411 (2016). In that case, the US Supreme court held 9-0 that the Second Amendment applies to all bearable arms, not just those that were in existence at the time that the Second Amendment was ratified.

In that case, the Massachusetts Supreme court had ruled that stun guns are not protected [by the Second Amendment] because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” that stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” and that “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 

The U.S. Supreme Court, per curiam, vacated, reiterating that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that it has rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.”

This line of argument will eventually be the one that kills both the NFA and the GCA.

Categories: AntigunGun Laws

4 Comments

Rick · January 28, 2025 at 6:54 am

U.S. Supreme Court has a hand in creating the confusion. By the ‘common use’ standard, the court today could find that the actual firearms in use during the Founding are not protected due to them not rising to common use today.

The court should stop designing opinions and commit solely to originalist dicta. The former requires new opinions every now and then; the latter is hard and fast, one and done.

Jonesy · January 28, 2025 at 10:20 am

Thomas is the only true originalist on the court. Alito might be close, and Trump’s appointees are conservative but not always reliable in this regard.

Just like Row v Wade, there will have to be specific cases brought before the court to challenge the NFA and GCA.

It will take some time to find the right case, but in the mean time Massie introduced a national constitutional carry bill. It would be nice with us having all 3 branches of government getting that on Trump’s desk for signature. Plenty of wins out there to be had, we just have to move quickly. We’ll likely lose the house in 2026.

oldvet50 · January 29, 2025 at 7:53 am

So the USSC says “blah, blah, blah” . It makes no difference as to what they say. If that unanimous decision meant anything, we could own machine guns with no infringement. You only have the rights that you, yourself, can enforce.

    Divemedic · January 29, 2025 at 8:19 am

    The fight is a long one that is sabotaged by those on “our side” like the NRA, who is the group that willingly dealt away our rights in order to placate the Fudds in the hunting community. The NRA has longed screwed over the 2A:
    – They supported gun licensing in the 1930’s
    – They supported the NFA
    – They supported GCA ’68
    – They supported the Mulford Act
    – They supported the ’86 machine gun ban
    Then came gun culture 2.0, but even then, it was the NRA who told President Trump that they would be OK with a bump stock ban. Even here on this very blog, there are people who said “Well, if the bump stock ban didn’t happen, we would have had something worse.”
    No, we wouldn’t have. Trump could have vetoed whatever came out of Congress, and there were not enough votes to override a Presidential veto.
    I am ashamed to admit that I am a lifetime member of the NRA. I am attempting to atone for that error by making monthly donations to both the FPC and the SAF.
    It’s a long, hard battle, made harder when there are groups on your own side that allow the enemy to exploit fractures in order to divide and conquer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.