[maestro pistolero]

The Hughes amendment that closed the registration for new select fire weapons is, in fact, a ban on an entire class of firearms that are commonly used throughout the world. It is a government prohibition on new, full auto firearms for everyone, except the government (and dealers) at all times. This ban cannot possibly be squared with the clear intent and purpose as announced in the first clause of the Second Amendment.

Justice Scalia asserts in Heller that modern technology creates a disconnect between the militia/anti-tyranny purpose and the self-defense purpose of the amendment. That's true as far as it goes, because very few people can afford their own fighter jet or aircraft carrier.

But what creates the disconnect where small arms are concerned, is the government's own, very recent ('86) prohibition on new sales to all law-abiding people at all times.

Remember, the court said that the second amendment extends, prima facia, to all instruments that constitute a bearable arm.

But then the court implies that imagining second amendment protection for some small arms, "M-16s and the like", would be an "alarming" reading of US v Miller. Why?

Actually, wouldn't that be a plain reading of US versus Miller and clause 1? The only thing Miller didn't apparently didn't get right is that short-barreled shotguns are, in fact, useful in warfare.