No basis in opinion to argue that NFA is unconstitutional. Court touches on Miller and NFA. Says NFA restrictions on machineguns is not contrary to Miller.
As for (semi-auto) assault rifle laws, opinion doesn't shed much/any light. Some implication that if a type of weapon is typically used by lawful citizens for lawful self-defense purposes, then ownership should be protected under Miller. But doesn't directly address it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by legion
That is exactly how I interpreted that.
What does that mean for the post-'86 ban?
How about the bans many states have on Class III stuff?
How about California's ban on "assault rifles"?
|