|
The argument the state would use, and probably the 9th circuit would agree, is that "assault weapons" are "dangerous or unusual" and therefore it is consitutional to severely restrict or ban them.
I know most of us really disagree with that thought but I think it is the only argument that can logically be made to support an AWB. I think it is pretty easy to refute that as "assault weapons" are not anymore dangerous than say hadnguns, which were prtoected by heller, and based upon the numbers in circulation are not particularly unusual.
I think whether or not an AWB is overturned hinges upon the definition of "dangerous and unusual".
I also think it will be easier to challenge laws that restrict possession of certain firearms because that is what Heller was about. It will be more difficult to get courts to strike down laws prohibiting carry as there is no binding precedent that carrying a firearm is a constituional right. Heller hints at it but the holding in Heller does not say it.
|