Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses a new legal test, one that actually was created out of thin air, which perverts the Common Use Test, clearly articulated in Heller. Today we discuss the new “In Common Use for Self-defense Test” whereby judges can then subjectively determine the usefulness of a particular firearm, from the bench, and then uphold outright bans of such items. This new and very dangerous test will be repeated over and over throughout this country for the courts most interested in achieving civilian disarmament. So learn about this, and more importantly, how to combat this ridiculous rule with common sense, law and the Constitution. Arm yourself with education today.
Read O.F.F. v. Kotek. https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6657/attachments/original/1689377574/OFF_v_Kotek_252_Opinion.pdf?1689377574
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Contact Washington Gun Law
If you have any questions about this topic, or anything else related to what’s left of our Second Amendment Rights, remember you can always contact us at:
www.washingtongunlaw.com or call us directly at 425-765-0487.
Stay safe.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Subscribe to use on Rumble. https://rumble.com/c/WashingtonGunLaw
Subscribe to us on Patreon. www.patreon.com/WashingtonGunLaw
Remember, you can follow us at www.washingtongunlaw.com
Like us on Facebook at www.Facebook.com/WashingtonGunLaw
Follow us on Twitter @GunWashington
source
This needs to be shut down immediately. They've added "for self-defense" out of thin air, and redefined "used for self-defense" to be limited only to actually killing or at least putting a bullet in someone. Unlike, to a degree, "sensitive places," this is not a novel or unsettled legal question – SCOTUS has stated unequivocally that mere possession qualifies as use for self-defense, and use is for ANY lawful purpose, not only self-defense.
So the effectiveness of a firearm for lawful self defense, tending to reduce crime, counts against the inalienable right to such firearm for defense.
The argument at 11:35 (which I couldn't find in the linked document so I didn't quote it here) raises another question: What can be done about normalizing the state of weapons that WOULD be in common use today (e.g., NFA items, particularly suppressors) had not a previous and almost certainly unconstitutional ban ensured they are not in common use today?
The ar-15 may or may not be in common use for self defense we don't have enough data on that. We absolutely know the ar-15 is used in less crimes than any other firearm.
The counter to the "common use for self defense test" needs to be hit much harder. The reliance on data for use of a type of firearm in a self defense shootings is a very poor metric, empirically speaking, and does NOT indicate what percentage of semi-auto rifles are held in possession for the purpose of self defense. It is likely that many who own for the purpose of self defense take the topic of self-defense so seriously that they have multiple layers of defense for their property (e.g., exterior lighting, alarms systems) and that the firearm is the final layer of defense. Thus, they are being used for the purpose of self defense, but are not being fired in a self-defense shooting. Moreover, and I think this is important, if they are arguing that only those firearms that are commonly used for self-defense SHOOTINGS are protected by the second amendment, then they are saying that they can legally ban ANY firearm other than a handgun. Hunting rifles, shotguns, ELR rifles, and so much more are not primarily used by the average owner for self-defense. This is a HUGE claim that is offensive to so many moderate and even liberal gun-owners. We should be shouting from the rooftops that they are now claiming that it is constitutional to ban ALL of these types of firearms. Pointing this out shows just how absurd the argument is on its face. A real embarrassment.
Well put, one of the best defense arguments. he made my hair stand up.
So what there calling our rifle is a assault rifle, last time I checked mine is a company's name
Why do they keep saying ASSAULT RIFLE… They are called MODERN SPORT RIFLE… So what is this Assault rifle they are talking about ..??
You know, more people should use an AR for self defense in their home!
Did the opposition argument just manage to promote this? LOL
I need to know: is there really a justice named Ermagert?
Thank you!
Yeah.. .missed that part… "…shall not be infringed so long as said arms are in common use." The whole concept is flat wrong.
It is incorrect to say Bryan was the first to use the "in common use for self defense" argument. Immergut used it in 2022 and that was likely just a cut and paste from previous anti-gun language used elsewhere.
Sickening, how many judges are seeking loopholes to strip The People of their rights.
Brainwashed judge locked into a liberal echo chamber. SCOTUS most definitely disagrees!!!
WA STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION – Article 1, Section 24.
“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”
Section 27 of Article 1 of the Oregon Constitution says, “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.”
No law that appears to violate any portion of the constitution should ever go into effect and be enforced until after it has passed all legal challenges.
Believe me if they will let us carry AR an AK platform rifles and pistols in Chicago concealed or open carry don't matter it'll be a lot of self-defenses with those platforms I'd rather carry one of those platforms with me too anyway
Just carrying my pistol in case I need it is USING it. I don’t have to shoot someone to qualify as use. The same applies to any gun I choose for that purpose.
Seems easy enough to defeat, unless the twisted judges are willing to state they believe that law enforcement only has firearms and super capacity clipazines for offensive actions. Can of worms, meet can opener. LEOs mostly fall into the law-abiding citizen category, despite committing crimes at seven times the rate of non-LEO concealed carry permit holders.
large numbers of recall comeing up i outher states, past time washington voters to wake up, or loose the right to vote . never vote for anybody in office .
So infuriating that these lawyers and judges are picking and using the language that SCOTUS has laid down. The way it is put is common use for things LIKE self-defense! Not common use for self defense only. So it could mean self-defense, target practice, collecting and looking at. It doesn't matter as long as it's common use for any lawful purposes!
Yeah… Surfacing in CT AWB case. The state is pretending that Heller, Bruen and other cases never happened.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ctd.151393/gov.uscourts.ctd.151393.59.0.pdf
“Shall not be infringed”. Constitutionally, no politician even has position to suggest a gun law unless it strengthens 2A. Anything after 2A is usurpation of power.
SCOTUS needs to step up. This is all such BS.
I should be allowed to meet force with force, I don't want to sit around wondering if attackers have an elephant gun to my measly AR platform rifle…Now I almost feel compelled to buy an elephant gun… I think I'll mount it to my assault scooter. Gas mileage will go down though.
On the test for common use for self defense, the 2a is also for rebelling against tyrannical governments like the battle of Athens in 1946 Thomson submachine guns have been used so does that mean they have 100% usage rate among rebelling? Or AR-15's during the Bundy ranch?
They're getting very desperate this is a sign of weakness they're trying anything and everything they are extremely slimy individuals never rest because they won't
I appreciate how they used her instead of Hlm play on those Democrat Heartstrings😊
The fyrd is a Constitutional imperative and the people are the militia.