Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
This snippet was what caused me to foolishly make my original post to this thread(#13).
Taken along with your third excerpt in post #10, it seems like applying a common use test to only the civilian market sets up a framework for implementing a technology freeze their opinion dismisses as an argument "bordering on the frivolous". Legislation that prevents new invention from reaching the civilian market would effectively freeze us to current technology.
O'course, I'll probably have assumed room temperature before that matters. Seems like an invitation for future additional mischief.