Originally Posted by
contrails12
dude, with all due respect, you’re quibbling around the edges. Heller was about what amounts to a gun ban.
There’s nothing to stop a legislative body from banning ARs, limiting ammo type or capacity, instituting more stringent background checks, etc. there’s limits, as instructed via heller, but there’s a lot of regulation that’s permissible.
Heller wasn’t about a total gun ban, it was about a local government banning one type of gun, handguns. The Court ruled that they were considered arms that are protected under the second amendment. The same argument could be made about banning another type such as an AR. Banning AR style rifles, limiting magazine capacities, caliber restrictions, or any of the popular ideas won’t have an impact on violent crime big enough to even measure. Why take away the freedom of countless law abiding citizens who enjoy those type of guns if the measurable return is so small? Because it fits a political narrative, or makes someone feel like they are part of the solution?