Supreme Court to decide whether common firearms are truly common

1 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.

Read the story at American Thinker - Blog →

What we know

Patriot Watch first flagged this story 10 hr ago, when American Thinker - Blog reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 10 hr ago from American Thinker - Blog. Verification tier: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated.

⚖ The Constitutional Angle

District of Columbia v. Heller held that the Second Amendment protects firearms in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense. Jaime Caetano v. Massachusetts reinforced that the Amendment covers all bearable arms, including ones not existing at the founding, and rejected judging commonness by 1789 standards. The coming case turns on whether the arms are commonly owned and used by law-abiding citizens today.

District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Vote: 5-4 · Opinion: Scalia

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use it for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.

Jaime Caetano v. Massachusetts 577 U.S. 411 (2016)

Vote: Unanimous per curiam (8-member Court, post-Scalia); no recorded vote split · Opinion: Per curiam (unsigned)

Summarily vacating the SJC's judgment without briefing on the merits or oral argument, the Court held that each of the SJC's three rationales contradicted Heller: the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all bearable arms, including those not in existence at the founding; 'unusual' cannot be equated with 'not in common use in 1789';…

Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited