[ScottfromNJ]

“prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Regarding this wording in Heller, the only weapons I can think of that should fit this category are biological and nuke type weapons, since their power can’t be controlled and they would indiscriminately kill tens of thousands of innocents. Of course Heller doesn’t clarify that statement, but any weapon that can be controlled by the owner should be Constitutionally protected. Guns with large magazine capacity certainly fit that category.

[Scrambler Bob]

Unusual = = >

Have you seen the Toilet Paper Blaster Skid Shot Blaster?

[Yo-Yo]

Regarding this wording in Heller, the only weapons I can think of that should fit this category are biological and nuke type weapons, since their power can’t be controlled and they would indiscriminately kill tens of thousands of innocents. Of course Heller doesn’t clarify that statement, but any weapon that can be controlled by the owner should be Constitutionally protected. Guns with large magazine capacity certainly fit that category.

The part that concerns me is Scalila's statement "Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons" precludes the future legalization of new technology weapons.

By definition, a new form of self defense weapon (for example a phased-plasma rifle in the 40-watt range) is not "in common use" therefore will never be a protected weapon.

If such an interpretation were made in 1820, metallic cartridge firearms would not be a protected class of firearms today.

[Svartalfiar]

Of course Heller doesn’t clarify that statement, but any weapon that can be controlled by the owner should be Constitutionally protected. Guns with large magazine capacity certainly fit that category.

I don't have numbers, but I would think private merchantmen owned more cannon in the late 1700s than the US government did.