[legion]

Originally Posted by red-beard

To me, the dumb part is where they limit the firearms to what is commonly held. Well, some of mthe reason that short barrelled shotguns, True Assault rifles (Full Auto), etc, are not commonly held, is that they have been severly restricted over the past 40-75 years.

Yep.

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.