re: #264 lawhawk

Then again, even Scalia opined that Heller doesn’t preclude reasonable gun restrictions. The question is therefore what is considered reasonable gun restriction.

Prohibiting a specific class of firearms might be reasonable if the overall right to bear arms isn’t impinged. You can ban certain high capacity ammo holders (clips/magazines), and that doesn’t prevent a person from owning firearms.

You could conceivably require periodic registration of the firearms or licensing renewals, and that conforms to “reasonable gun restrictions”.

Banning an entire class of weapons using language that is suspect wouldn’t pass muster. And therein lies the problem - how to describe weapons that are permissible or impermissible without creating significant loopholes or would violate the 2d.

Even with the string of atrocities, the will isn’t there. Gallup a few days ago found that the public acceptance of increased legal control had ‘spiked’, all the way to 38%. In much of the country crossing the gunfondlers is political suicide.