The phrase in common use has become the legal equivalent of a moving target, and the Civilian Marksmanship Program’s decision to sell M14s is the latest reminder that the standard is as much about politics as it is about pistols. The M14, once the standard-issue rifle of the U.S. military, is now being offered to civilians in limited numbers—yet its very availability undercuts the argument that semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines are somehow “unusual” or “not in common use.” If a rifle that served in two wars and is still fielded by the CMP can be sold to law-abiding Americans, the notion that modern sporting rifles are exotic outliers collapses under its own weight.

That same logic is now being tested in courtrooms across the country as prosecutors and judges grapple with the Bruen framework. The USA Today piece highlights how lower courts are struggling to apply the “text, history, and tradition” test to assault-weapon restrictions, often defaulting to interest-balancing that Bruen explicitly rejected. Meanwhile, the Indiana road-rage case—where a prosecutor quickly labeled the shooter’s actions self-defense—illustrates how the right to keep and bear arms is exercised daily without fanfare, reinforcing that the Second Amendment is not an abstract theory but a lived reality for millions.

Taken together, these stories expose the perennial flaw in the “in common use” test: it invites judges and legislators to play gatekeeper over which arms are popular enough to be constitutional, a role the Founders never envisioned. The CMP’s M14 sale, the ongoing assault-weapon litigation, and routine self-defense incidents all point to the same conclusion—the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not to popularity contests or bureaucratic checklists.