The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that firearms that are considered to be in “common use” among the American people are protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment and shall not be subject to government bans or onerous restrictions.
Yet, in discussing a proposed new “assault weapons” ban, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) openly admitted that the Democratic legislation sought to ban most semi-automatic firearms specifically because such weapons were in “common use” among the people, the Daily Caller reported.
Indeed, Nadler made it explicitly clear that the fundamental “point” of the proposed ban on so-called “assault weapons” was to outlaw such firearms precisely because it was a “problem,” in his view, that such weapons are in “common use.”
Nadler unwittingly admits proposed ban is unconstitutional
At issue here is H.R. 1808, the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2021,” which was introduced last year by Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) and received a hearing Wednesday in the House Judiciary Committee, of which Congressman Nadler serves as chairman.
That bill, if it became law, would effectively ban most semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns — but particularly nearly all AK- and AR-style firearms — over certain cosmetic features that have little to no bearing on how the firearms actually function, such as pistol grips or adjustable stocks or detachable ammunition magazines.
In debating that measure, Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) asked his Democratic colleagues on the committee, “Would anyone on the other side dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?” Nadler replied, “That’s the point of the bill.”
“So, to clarify, Mr. Chairman, you’re saying it is the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today,” Bishop pressed. Nadler then affirmed, “Yes,” and added, “The problem is that they’re in common use.”
Bishop: “Is there any Democrat that would dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use?”
Nadler: “That’s the point of the bill.”
Bishop: “So it is the point of the bill to ban guns that are in common use?”
Nadler: “The problem is they are in common use.” pic.twitter.com/ya1snfokaM
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 20, 2022
SCOTUS says Second Amendment protects weapons in “common use”
The real “problem” here, though, is that this proposed “assault weapons” ban is blatantly unconstitutional precisely because the weapons that Democrats now seek to ban are in common use, as per multiple Supreme Court rulings within the past 14 years, according to the Daily Caller.
In 2008’s D.C. v. Heller, in which D.C.’s handgun ban was struck down, the majority ruled that the Second Amendment “protected a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms that are in common use,” the outlet noted.
That “common use” standard against onerous government restrictions on firearms was further cited and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago as well as 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Additionally, as for all of the talk from Democrats about banning so-called “weapons of war,” that would be in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s 1939 U.S. v. Miller ruling in which it was determined that the Second Amendment specifically applies to weapons that would be useful in the context of “militia” service, or, in other words, military-style weapons of war.