Originally Posted By CheaperThanDirt:
For those of you who think the commonality of a firearm doesn't matter to the courts, this is the end of page 52 and the beginning of page 53 of Scalia's majority opinion in the Heller case:
The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25
Bold added by me. There is also more text about this on page 55.
CTD EDIT (yeah yeah, not in red, so what): Private Contractor, if you're familiar with crime guns than you know how many of them are stolen. Keeping guns expensive isn't a solution to crime any more than keeping their stocks from folding is. People with lower incomes have the same 2nd amendment rights as the rest of us and the shooting sports shouldn't be confined to the upper classes. Leave that theory to the arrogant Euro trash.
Good post ... thanks.