“Clearly Unconstitutional” I am glad to hear such a firm statement. There have been others in the Second Amendment legal community that have broached the topic of round limitations, and while I realize there’s a limit to how far the federal courts are likely willing to go on these topics, if a ten round limit is conceded as constitutional, why not a seven round limit? What qualifies a judge, or legislator, to make such assessments? I know a lot of folks have derided the “common use” language in Heller as being a circular argument when it comes to machine guns and other long-regulated items, but I think that misses the forest for the trees.
If the Court does, in future cases, cement a “common use” test, that takes such questions out of the hands of judges and lawmakers and puts it squarely in the hands of the American people. You have some subjectivity in determining what does or does not constitute “in common use,” but if it’s interpreted correctly, I think in terms of magazines, it would get you to at least twenty round magazines being protected arms, and a more honest assessment ought to protect thirty round magazines as well. In terms of other arms, I likewise think it offers broad protections, without putting things like rocket launchers, MANPADs, or anti-tank missiles on the table, which federal judges, lawmakers, or the American people, are just never going to accept.
I’ve said before, we lost the machine gun argument in the 1930s. That was the time to have a fight over machine guns and it didn’t happen. I agree that for machine guns, common use is a circular argument, since they are not in common use because of the restrictions. I’d like to own a few myself if they eased the restrictions. But I think we’re beyond arguing for legal protections for machine guns, and the goal now needs to be getting serious and broad protections for everything else.