comment: >
  
  Civilian is a civilian is a civilian. That's why it's fucked that cops can buy guns on the no pistol buy list in CA and freely resell them.
context: I'm not sure giving the Supreme Court a new gun case to rule on is actually a win for gun control advocates. >
  
  With Dominic Bianchi v. Brian Frosh catching a GVR from SCOTUS, I think we can safely assume “assault weapon” bans are on the chopping block. IL is just working on their SCOTUS speedruns. Have to compete against NY, NJ and CA after all. >
  
  
  I think we can safely assume “assault weapon” bans are on the chopping block.
  
  Assault weapon bans were on the chopping block before Bruen decision. It actually got more time because of the decision. There was a case that got knocked down the the lower courts again after Bruen that was against California's ban. Assault Weapon bans will fall because of the Heller decision as they are extremely common use now. Also if you use democrat's words against them with them being "weapons of war" then it would also fail because of Miller decision. Remember that the 94 AWB was never challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds and since it's ending they have become one of the popular styles of guns in the country. >
  
  There are a very large number of AR-15s, M4s and similar rifles currently used by a plethora of federal agencies and law enforcement (outside of DoD). To include select fire (ie full auto capable machine gun) variants. Not to mention flash hiders, collapsible stocks, fore grips, suppressors and other banned features.
  Given that all those agencies have explicit policies that their employees can only use deadly force to defend against threats to their life or the life of another - which is the exact same standard for when any civilian is allowed to use deadly force - I think there is pretty good evidence that such weapons ARE appropriate for defensive purposes and the "weapons of war'" rhetoric is false. The alternative, if the government wants to claim they are in fact "weapons of war'" only appropriate for military use, is that the executive branch has created a standing army not subject to the 2 yr approval of Congress in violation of the Constitution. (I do not believe the later is the case.) >
  
  You seem confused by the difference between government agencies and citizens. No citizen needs any of those capabilities.