@Advocate,
"Advocate" wrote: (in part)
Quote:BTW, why Heller put to bed any support for the DC gun ban,
it did leave open, in my view very clearly, the right of the govt.
to ban assault weapons. . . .
Well, it left it
open in the sense that that issue was
NOT before the Court,
but some of its dicta suggest that the Court may well respect
a pro-freedom, anti-government position.
". . . 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. "
[All emphasis has been added by David.]