RPB wrote:Seems like an Act (Gun Control Act/Assault Weapons Ban) is at least in part, unconstitutional if it allows infringement on "self-defense/home defense. I didn't research laws on this much, but I can't see constitutionality of regulating home defense.
I'm not sure that an "Assault Weapons" Ban would be found unconstitutional, but a law that restricts firearms to those suitable to "sporting purposes" would seem to conflict with the key holding in Heller
--that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess firearms for self-defense purposes.
I propose that given that there are 2 sides in any armed conflict, one is used for assault, and if assaulted, the other is used for defense of that assault, and often, they are the same weapon. So, assault weapons are, or can be defensive weapons. When either one drops his gun and the other party picks it up, it is often used for the "other purpose"
If an enemy with an assault weapon gives it up and you are holding it, and you are attacked by another enemy, the former assault weapon becomes a defensive weapon against the new enemy holding an assault weapon, which is identical to the one you use to defend yourself..
I've read News reports of AK-47 defending homes, Dr. Suzanna Hupp testified of what an AR-15 defending homes?
I'd bet SKS rifles have too.
But , picatinney rails, bayonet lugs, folding stocks, and a pistol grip make them only
useful for assault and useless for defense ..
(Those grips/stocks/flashlight mounts must make the bullet come out harder so it is more bad?)