ARs sure aren't dangerous and unusual. A weapon can be though. Chemical weapons, nukes, heck cruise missiles. Etc.Yes, I agree. What is the correlation between a bowie knife and a semi-automatic AR? So called AWB?
I my curiosity, I googled this.......https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/12/the-supreme-courts-dangerous-and-unusual-error-is-worse-than-michigans-rifle-carrying-protestors/
Probably not the only place to look for definitions of dangerous and unusual. Somewhere I read that AR's can't be both dangerous and unusual.
Heller correctly observed that the Second Amendment protects an entirely fundamental, individual right “to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” including “all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” and concluded, therefore, that the District’s ban on the possession of handguns was unconstitutional. However, as I explained here and here, the Court additionally opined, contradictorily and incorrectly, that the right to arms is limited to those that are “in common use” and, therefore, the federal law that prohibits the private possession of a fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986—an arguably uncommon type of firearm, in part because of that law—is not unconstitutional.
However, as America’s leading Second Amendment historian, attorney Stephen Halbrook, explained in “Going Armed With Dangerous And Unusual Weapons To The Terror Of The People: How The Common Law Distinguished The Peaceable Keeping And Bearing Of Arms,”
This is better path....https://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=9112
Just ME. I've found Stephen Halbrook and his books, and opinion's pretty much spot on and in agreement with SCOTUS.
This is spot on too.
Cases challenging state bans on semi-automatic firearms have been appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and Democrats working toward civilian disarmament hope to prevail in part by characterizing semi-automatics as “dangerous and unusual” even when they are kept and borne in a peaceful manner, and even though they are owned by millions of Americans.
In reviewing those bans, the Court should heed Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s recent suggestion that its errant rulings may warrant correction when they are “egregiously wrong” and have had “real-world effects on the citizenry.” Heller’s “dangerous and unusual” error surely fits that description.
I believe the main reason we are where we are at with AR's and loaded carry of pistols for self defense is
Hoplophobia. Defination... irrational fear of weapons.
I'm not a psychiatrist!
Irrational aversion to weapons
- Hoplophobia is a neologism, originally coined to describe an "irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them." It is sometimes used more generally to describe the "fear of weapons" or the "highly salient danger of these weapons" or the "fear of armed citizens."
And I am pretty sure the current court will, if an AWB does get to them, better define dangerous and unusual. I notice some courts interpreting that as dangerous OR unusual. But I also think there is not a plurality on the court that is going to overturn the NFA. At least not completely. And I doubt they'll overturn Hughs. Maybe I am not an optimist, but I just don't see it happening.