I would argue that the definition of what is a ‘battle rifle’ is quite arbitrary to the times and the needs. The M-1 Garand was the best rifle of WW2 by many accounts. That standard is not what is considered the best today. A different set of ‘needs’ is desired, resulting in the M-4 or civilian AR-15, or AK.
It isn’t up to anyone but the individual what their ‘needs’ are. If I don’t harm anyone unjustly with what I consider my ‘needs’, then constitutionally nobody can define those needs.
Shall not be infringed. The left squeals and blows a gasket every time a state wants voter ID laws. The Democrats argue that it places an undue burden on the poor even with provisions for free ID. I think that every law abiding citizen should be free to keep and bear arms without any taxes or fees. Especially any type or style of weapon that is used by law enforcement. Taxes, fees, Assault Weapon bans all infringe upon the rights of the people. It would be nice if a court would rule in a similar manner and actually find that fees and special taxes are unlawful.
The definition has little to nothing to do with “needs” under the 2nd Amendment, nor my comment.
The military had a definition for a battle rifle, and the “assault rifles” we’re too puny to meet those needs, especially lacking in range, and power...which is the exact opposite of the impression most people have.
Most people have this silly idea - from the name - that “assault weapons” are big powerful weapons, and that “military rounds” are especially powerful and damaging, when the opposite is true: they fall into the lower end of hunting rifles (large varmint), in many states are not considered powerful enough to humanely kill deer and thus not legal to hunt deer with for that reason, and the military rounds they use are jacketed in order to limit fragmentation compared to typical hunting rounds.