The Federals have no say in that. And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons. But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific. For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns. But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.
It can stand up in court for not being arbitrary as to the definition of what is banned, but not why it need to be banned.
There are about 30,000 shooting deaths a year, and only a couple hundred are with all rifles, much less ARs.
Almost all the deaths are pistol related.
And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense weapon, as there are going to be less accidental shoots from a 2 handed over a 1 handed weapon.
Small side point, but remember states do not have rights.
They only have delegated authority that comes from their defense of the rights of individuals.
But I understood that is likely what you meant.
Nonsense.
An AR is a dreadful HD weapon – particularly in heavily populated areas.
You’ll not only end up killing the intruder, you’ll also end up killing your neighbor in the apartment next door – that’s not the case with a shotgun or handgun.
You’re trying – and failing – to contrive an ‘argument’ that because the ubiquitous AR is so commonplace, it should be afforded the same protections as the possession of handguns.
That’s a losing tactic.
The successful tactic will address the level of judicial review, preferably strict scrutiny – where subject to that standard, most firearm regulatory measures would be invalidated, including the regulation of ARs and similar carbines and rifles.
Actually, an AR is MUCH safer as a home defense weapon than a pistol, and a pistol is not very good.
It appears to me you are suggesting that an AR is too powerful and will pass through walls too easily, and that is not the case.
The AR bullet is the .223, which is a very tiny and light bullet, which is only barely spin stabilized by the rifling in the barrel. Once the bullet hits anything at all, and slows down in the least, it immediately tumbles and loses all penetration capability.
The risk of danger to those beyond the walls of the home is probably much lower with an AR than with most pistol bullets.
Lets compare the AR .223/5.56 with the common .357 pistol?
5.56 with a 55 grain bullet has a velocity of 2600fps, for about 1500-1700lbs of energy
.357 with 158 grain bullet has a velocity of 2153fps, for about 1626lbs of energy.
But it is even worse than that for .223 penetration because drywall tests show that it immediately starts to tumble and that prevents any significant penetration of common housing wall.
The main thrust of home safety is that pistols are far more likely to shoot someone by accident since they are one handed and can quickly be accidentally aimed at one of your own family members. A two handed weapon is much more steady in aiming only where you intentionally want it to be aimed, and it is harder to drop, etc.
Although I would agree that a shotgun is even better, in that it is even easier to aim and has even less wall penetration.
-
