Likewise it does not necessitate that they are. You are asking me to apply the Doctrine of Prior Restraint outside of it's intended application. Constitutional doctrines are a set of rules and guidelines intended to help decide legal issues given a certain set of circumstances. Prior restraint provides the constitutional guidelines relevant to censorship. How is this even a debate? I regret that I got sucked into considering it because you insist on trying to paint me into a corner. I've come to my senses. Prior restraint is a free speech doctrine. This is not debatable. If you want to take it outside of that, then the burden of justification rests on your shoulders. Now, I am against banning AR-15s, as I am against a lot of gun control measures. I have yet to see an argument that convinces me background checks for eligibility are unconstitutional, although I am not saying they don't exist. Using the doctrine of prior restraint is very creative, granted, but I am not so sure it is appropriate. I could easily say that the doctrine of Public Forum is applicable to the 2nd Amendment, but I would be obliged to justify it.