| Final-Fan said:
|
Scalia (who wrote the Heller decision) didn't equivocate the military and the militia. The militia included all persons capable of military service, but weren't necessary members of a military.
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
Assault rifles are already heavily regulated, because they have selective fire (can switch to fully automatic setting) and because they weren't in common use when their regulations were imposed.
If you are talking about semi-automatic rifles, they aren't unusual. Semiautomatics make up something like 25% of all new rifles produced, and a majority of newhandguns produced.
"The National Rifle Association has estimated that 25 percent of all rifles produced in the United States are AR-15s or other semiautomatic styles, while other gun groups have said the ratio is closer to 50 percent."
Last edited by sc94597 - on 26 February 2018
