Not exactly, but close.Heller made no such claim. US V Miller is the only case law that deals with AR's and they are the only weapon the Supremes felt were covered by the 2nd Amendment. Their reasoning being that a sawed off shotgun could be regulated by law because it has "no foreseeable military purpose".No, you lying asshole. You can read Heller for yourself … wait, no you can't, but that's not my fault.Really.Scalia already wrote govts can "ban" AR-15s if they want
Cite the case and quote the text to that effect.