What is unreasonable about a law abiding American citizen owning the weapon that he used in the service of his country? Owning an M16 is perfectly consistent with the second amendment. In fact, we should follow Israels lead and take our M16's home with us when we leave active duty.
Your prior restraint argument is going nowhere.
Why stop with that? How about an M-60, or a grenade launcher, or a 175mm SP? And surely you are not limiting such use to only those who served are you?
Your prior restraint argument is going nowhere.
That's irrelevant to me. As you well know JW, I don't post here on FR to make friends, but to make points. I have made the points I suspect the prosecution would make in this case. The judge could well agree with you, though I doubt it.
The weapon itself is perfectly consistent with the second amendment. The Miller court implied that weapons that had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" are protected by the second amendment.
Now, as to who may keep and bear those weapons they didn't say. Everyone? Militia members? The state itself in an armory?
I believe that is a state decision.