you hope that they don’t declare that ar-15’s are NOT military weapons and that they should be allowed for self defense? A declaration like that woudl be affirming that civilians have the right to own such for self defense- Am i misunderstandign you?
I think so. We certainly want the Supreme Court to declare what IS protected. The problem arises when the Supreme Court declares what ISN'T protected.
At the time of our founding, "arms" were protected. That pretty much covers every weapon or device used for offense or defense.
The Heller decision established the "common use" test forbidding the banning of commonly owned arms. Machine guns are not commonly owned simply because the National Firearms Act of 1934 demanded a heavy tax and registration on them. Later laws outlawed the manufacture of machine guns for "civilian" use, a distinction which does not appear in the Constitution.
If the NFA of 1934 hadn't been passed, probably everybody who owns an AR15 today would instead own an M16. The cost to manufacture them would be almost identical.
Another test established by the Supreme Court is that some arms can be prohibited if they are "dangerous AND unusual". Every arm is dangerous since it can enable an attacker, like a firearm, or protect an attacker, like body armor.
So the real test results in the government being able to outlaw "unusual" weapons. That is ridiculous on its face. Stun guns, for example, would have been "unusual" up until the time they were common. The Caetano decision established that stun guns are commonly owned and are thus protected.
Another "myth" being supported by the anti-gunners is that weapons particularly suited to military use can be banned. Even Judge Benitez in California has a line in his decision overturning California's "assault weapons" ban that suggests that military weapons could be banned. That is absolute nonsense. The AR15 operates in a fashion quite similar to an M1 combat rifle from World War II. Does that make either one of them unsuitable for civilian use? I think not.