[pcfixer]

Originally Posted by Pericles

I find it fascinating how this language from the Heller decision:

"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra

....

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."

Became Heller decided M16s are not protected by the 2A.

I'd say misquoted Heller is either stupidity or judicial activism in the decision. Quite possibly both.
Also the argument over "common use", that the AR-15 is not considered common use!

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...y-act-Maryland

The Firearms Safety Act does not ban the sale of an AR-15 with a heavy barrel. In fact, it is not a "regulated" firearm in Maryland. The AR-10 is not banned in Maryland and can be purchased and carried out of the store on the same day. The difference between an AR-10 and an AR-15? The AR-10 is a larger caliber firearm. The truth is, Maryland does not really have an assault weapons ban as they claim.

The Firearms Safety Act of 2013 is a very poor attempt, a quick fix, at reducing gun violence in Maryland. As a retired police officer, I worked to combat violent crime for 23 years across the state of Maryland. I have a very strong understanding of the causes of violence and tactics we can use to reduce violence. I have worked in specialized units to target gun violence and gang violence. We are not addressing the true causes of gun violence. Maryland's efforts to reduce gun violence by passing a very poor piece of legislation are out of focus.
Jack Mccauley

It is also of a note than many in Maryland purchase %80 lowers and put on HB uppers completely within the law. Many dealer also now sell gas piston AR's that are not regulated by the FSA 2013 law in fact as sold as cash and carry only with ATF 4473. Explain that to a progressive liberal?