If you read the Heller brief, you’d know.
Go ahead, quote the section that concerns you - and show us objectively why it’s wrong.
(If you haven’t read the brief, why are you posting on this thread?)
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. [Emphasis added]
In the Heller brief, the following appears at the bottom of page 3 (which is the summary of the Respondant’s argument):
“Under this Court’s precedent, the arms whose individual possession is protected by the Second Amendment are those arms that (1) are of the kind in common use, such that civilians would be expected to have them for ordinary purposes, and (2) would have military utility in time of need. A weapon that satisfied only one of these requirements would not be protected by the Second Amendment. Handguns indisputably satisfy both requirements.” [Emphasis added].
For once, I agree with Robert Paulsen (but probably not for a reason that he'd like). IMHO, the brief stated the law incorrectly, in that it is too limiting of the types of weapons that are protected by the 2nd Amendment. The correct statement of the law would have mentioned weapons that are "part of the ordinary military equipment" and which can also contribute to the common defense." To me, in light of the use of all kinds of weapons by partisan and special forces in WW2 and since, ANY weapon would be so protected. If RP wishes, I'll be glad to limit that to weapons that can be carried by a single man of average build - that way we still get BARs and M2s.