Mrebo said:
When the Court writes of weapons “in common use,” I think that obviously concerns something more than just the method of loading it.
Well, this has been interesting IMO, but I wanted to add one more thing on this point. I wouldn’t ever actually ever suggest banning breech loaders (yeah, not even CatBus would want that), but breech loading is more that just a method of loading, in its design implications. First off, the projectile is different. In a muzzle loader, it’s just a dumb ball, and you add the powder and wad separately. Boom, it’s just a dumb handheld carronade. In a (modern) breech loader, the bullet is the ball, powder, and wad all at once. Add to that your faster reload time and you’ve got a great increase in speed of fire. Then there’s advancements like rifling, which aren’t really practical in muzzle loaders. So muzzle loaders are slow and inaccurate compared to breech loaders. It’s much more than just a method of loading it. And while technically British soldiers had a handful of Fergusons during the US Revolution, they were very exotic and were quickly retired in favor of what was then the standard musket. AFAIK there were rarer to nonexistent among colonial militias and not a consideration of the drafters of the Second Amendment.
But I’ve got no problem at all with people keeping Winchesters and the like around for varmint control and whatnot, and they are way post-militia. They’re just not as fun and easy as firing an AR-15, which is IMO completely irrelevant in a matter of public safety.