The phrase “in common use” has become very popular when taking on various anti-gun proposals. The Supreme Court has found that the Second Amendment means you can’t ban weapons that are in common use, which suggests to far too many people that you can ban weapons that aren’t. This is a problem because the phrase doesn’t appear in the Second Amendment. It says “shall not be infringed.” 

That’s quite a different thing.

Gun rights writer David Codrea has been beating this particular drum, and I’m right next to him on it.

Recently, Codrea brought up a bit of new technology that highlights the real issue with the whole “in common use” thing.

“State-owned arms maker China South Industries Group (CSGC) has released footage of its electromagnetic coil gun,” Interesting Engineering claimed Sunday. “Allegedly capable of firing 3,000 rounds per minute, the prototype represents a major technical leap in portable directed-energy weaponry.”

“Portable”? So, they’re not talking about some rail gun prototype designed to be mounted on a ship or other fixed military platform?

…

This is where our “gun rights leaders” may have painted us into a corner, by seizing on the criteria of being “in common use at the time” as the standard to determine if a gun ban violates the  Second Amendment. It was never intended as a popularity contest.

Since no innovation ever begins “in common use,” a government with the power to do so can ban all new weapon developments from those they would rule, retaining them exclusively for itself. Remember the core purpose of the Second Amendment. To argue the Founders thought sending an outmatched yeomanry to their slaughter would be “necessary to the security of a free State” is insane.

As a science fiction nerd, I’ve long been fascinated with things like rail guns and coil guns, which are extremely similar in how they operate. I’ve figured they’re the future of weapon development and would take over the battlefield just as soon as the power concerns were addressed. It sounds like China is saying they’ve accomplished that.

Now, it’s China, which I trust about as much as I trust a meal of Mexican bottled water and gas-station sushi, but they do sometimes tell the truth about their developments, at least to some degree or another.

And if they’re lying, well, it’s just a matter of time before someone really does it.

Yet as Codrea notes, new technology can’t be in common use when it’s first developed. Someone had to buy the first DVD player or personal computer. Someone bought the first smartphone. 

New technology doesn’t just burst onto the scene, fully embraced by the population. It takes time. 

During that time, the “in common use” argument may well lead to regulations for this new technology, regulations that might well be upheld by the courts under this same concept.

This could be very bad as the military and police embrace the new technology while we’re relegated to relics of the 19th and 20th centuries. That could put us at a tactical disadvantage against a tyrannical regime. Their logistics train will be simpler; they can likely create field-expedient ammunition and fire at an impressive rate of speed without the muzzle flash or noise of a firearm, all without an additional item like a suppressor.

Codrea won me over previously with his opposition to “in common use,” and it was pretty much because of situations like this.