Why Bans on So-Called "Assault Weapons" Are Unlikely to Diminish the Deaths Caused by Mass Shootings
I'm on the record as saying that bans on so-called "assault weapons" are likely constitutional (see pp. 1483-87 of this article), and several state courts have held the same under state constitutional individual right-to-bear-arms provisions before Heller. Such bans leave law-abiding citizens with ample access to other guns that are equally effective, and therefore don't substantially burden the constitutional right.
FWIW (I think it unfortunate), Volkh is a favorite to cite, by judges. He is cited by SCOTUS, in Heller.
The whole argument is MOOT because approximately 100 million Americans will not comply with ANY judiciary order to meekly turn in their guns and few LEO’s would enforce such an order.
A corollary situation was Prohibition. Look how well that federal over reach worked. Another more current situation is federal marijuana laws are ignored. And, so are immigration laws and the list goes on and on and on.