[Redbob]

What does this do to Pres. GWH Bush’s ban on the importation of foreign military weapons?

[Blood of Tyrants]

In further reading, the decision is somewhat bipolar. On one hand it says that an entire class of weapons cannot be banned and then it says that modern weapons are protected by the 2A and then it goes on to say that since machine guns are not “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” or “in common use” they CAN be banned.

They have tried to walk a tightrope and failed. Can the government outlaw a gun because it is not “in common use” when the reason it is not “in common use” because the government has outlawed it?

[Sender]

Strictly speaking, it does not address a ban on imported military weapons, nor does it imply that such a ban is unconstitutional. What we won today is that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that any ban which forbids us from keeping and bearing some form of firearm would be unconstitutional.

As long as we are allowed to own domestic firearms, I don't see that the Heller ruling overturns any import ban.

The anti-gunners are already splitting hairs on this decision. Mayor Fenty of DC just said that all guns will continue to require registration, and that all "automatic and semiautomatic" handguns will continue to be illegal. Thus, if he lets you own a registered revolver, he has complied with the Heller decision.