The Second Amendment, the “Common Use” Argument, and Cars

Posted: March 21, 2013 by ShortTimer in Dodge Challenger, Government, Guns, Second Amendment, Tyranny, United States Constitution, US Supreme Court
Tags:

The SCOTUS Heller decision has a note of “commonly used/owned firearms”.  The Second Amendment is clear on “shall not be infringed”.  The “in common use/commonly owned” argument is bunk.  If the government embarks on a tyrannical move, say with something like the NFA of 1934 or the GCA of 1968 and bans a bunch of firearms, then they’re no longer “commonly owned”, even though they were banned unconstitutionally.  “Commonly owned” is a effectively a ban.

Imagine if there was a “right to drive and own automobiles”, now imagine that the Car Control Act of 1983 outlawed any car that has more than 150 HP and drives more than 90 mph, requiring registration of assault cars and destruction and confiscation of others, deemed “particularly dangerous” by the government.  Suddenly, something like this 1969 Plymouth Roadrunner is illegal:

1969 Roadrunner

Now along comes the State of New York vs The Stig SCOTUS decision of 2009.  Suddenly, the court finds that the onerous restrictions on cars were absurd, but SCOTUS is still an appendage of the state as one of the three branches of government, and they decide that only cars in “common use” are legal.  That leaves the 1969 Roadrunner, which isn’t in common use because of the decades-long ban, unprotected.  Specifically because it was the target of a ban, it was made uncommon.  Now with the “common use” exemption, it’s still illegal – because it was made uncommon by unconstitutional laws.

Because of that interpretation of common use, nothing new can come into being, either.  You can’t build a V10 Challenger or the Viper, because they’re more powerful than what’s in “common use”.

v10 challenger and viper 2

All that there can ever be is what’s in common use at the time of the SCOTUS decision, and what’s allowed to be in common use is what little bit of freedom managed to hang on despite the unconstitutional bans.

How does any of that fit in with a Constitution that says, “A well-regulated vehicle fleet, being necessary to the badassness of a free nation, the right of the people to own and drive automobiles shall not be infringed“?

Easy, it doesn’t.

There will be arguments by anti-horsepower eunuchs that “do you think everyone should be able to own a tank?” or “do you want everyone to drive a bulldozer to work?” or “why do you need 400 horsepower to drive to work?” or just “you hate children!”

All of these are fallacious and based on the desire of tyrant statists who “know what’s best for you” to try and dominate you.  Assuming that the framers of the 28th Amendment recognized “automobiles” and “armor” as two different things, just like “arms” and “ordnance”, then there’s the option for government, through the 9th and 10th Amendments, to regulate vehicles beyond automobiles in their own territories.  Same goes for “automobiles” and “tracked construction equipment”.  “Why do I need?” is easily responded to with “Why do you want to restrict my rights?”  It should be personal – you are who they are targeting for their ban.

And as to the last one, cars are cool.  All kids love cars, play with toy cars, and even if they aren’t allowed to, want to play with toy cars.

Heck, some kids from the 1980s were in part raised by toy cars and trucks.  Arguably they have better moral compasses, too.

optimus prime

Freedom is the right of all sentient beings. – Optimus Prime

The “common use/commonly owned” argument is an unconstitutional justification for state tyranny at the expense of the citizen, and in opposition and violation to a right that states “shall not be infringed“.  SCOTUS is wrong.  Isn’t the first time, won’t be the last.

Comments
  1. […] In this case, Kopel’s wrong, though he’s trying to win via SCOTUS precedent.  The Second Amendment says nothing about “commonly-owned”.  SCOTUS did.  And it’s unconstitutionally wrong. […]

  2. barnettlanepolitics says:

    An excellent point well made. In all my writings about the 2nd Amendment and guns, I’ve always thought about this metaphor but I’ve never been able to make it work. You have, and I applaud your brilliance. State of New York v The Stig—Love it!

    -SL

    • ShortTimer says:

      Some say he fought in the Revolutionary War as a time-traveler just to make sure the GT40 came into being, and that he once drank Ben Franklin under the table at the Hellfire Club – all we know is he’s called The Stig!

  3. […] a brief recap on why the “common use” argument is ultimately anti-rights nonsense, see here.  Then again, these sheriffs are trying to avert worse laws, so they’re willing to take back […]

  4. […] half-unconstitutional assertion that only arms in common use are protected (which is wrong and it’s wrongness is explained here), Shaneen Allen’s rights would still be inviolate.  The McDonald v Chicago and now Palmer v […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s