I understand the purpose of the 2nd, and I don't think I made my point clearly in the first posting. Sorry for the confusion.
In the Heller decision, SCOTUS clearly said that the 2nd amendment RKBA is an individual right. But Scalia writing for the majority said (in essence) that some restrictions would be permissible. I just don't believe that the Court, with the current makeup, would find a ban on 30 round AR-15 / AK-47 magazines to be unconstitutional. The conventional wisdom says that if we are going to keep our 20 and 30 round mags, it will have to be a political fight and a public opinion fight, not a legal fight.
But what if my right of personal expression requires me to shoot an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine? What if by shooting (not just possessing) an AR-15 and an M1 Garand, I express my connection with my nation’s history? What if shooting is a political statement? What if limiting me to a 10 round magazine prevents me from shooting as an act personal artistic freedom and political speech? This is a freedom of expression that has long been permitted, and is frequently exercised by millions of people, and now it is threatened by a new law.
The courts have been taken a harsh view on restrictions of political speech, and have struck down rules against flag burning. As another example, Public nudity laws don't apply during a Gay Pride march. There is a huge amount of case law surrounding the 1st amendment. Surely there is something in there that can be used?
So that is my question for the legal guys here... Could shooting at a range or on private property, as an act of personal expression or political speech, be protected under the 1st amendment? and if so, could a complete ban on 30 round magazines be challenged on that ground?