If you read
Miller v. US, you will find the same.
The Supreme Court announced the Second Amendment test, with respect to a weapon and whether it was intended to be included, was "whether this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
United States v. Miller: Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.
supreme.justia.com
This is the case from which Scalia got the "common use" test and bastardized everything to make the Second Amendment about a "core right" of self defense.
Read the case (at the link). You will see that common use is not a test at all, but just a historical observation about how early Americans were expected to show up with their privately owned arms of the type in common use at the time.
It would be like saying now militia should show up with privately owned M4 rifles because that is the type of weapon in common use as the infantry rifle.
You always see
Miller discussed as a federal case that held that a short barreled shotgun is not protected by the Second Amendment. Nothing of the sort was held in
Miller. Read it and see for yourself. The Arkansas judge threw out the indictment on Second Amendment grounds with no evidence - simply dismissed it (the "demurrer" mentioned in the beginning history of the case). The Supreme Court merely held that "in the absence of any evidence" (because not had been submitted below) "It is not within judicial notice" meaning the court is not simply going to recognize this without evidence (that is what judicial notice means). They then set forth the test:
Now read it and see if I am right or Scalia and all these commentators are right. Link is above. You now have the power to know about this case firsthand instead of being in the dark and relying on others telling you what you should think about it.