“Arms that bear a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia… lie at the core of the Second Amendment’s protection, and a State may not prohibit them,” the brief concludes. “A prohibition imposed because those arms are useful for the common defense is contrary to the Second Amendment’s text, purpose, and history.” [More]
How could a Militia with inferior weapons to a standing army fulfill the intent of the Founders as “being necessary to the security of a free State”? This paves the way for more than AR-15s.
This is the brief I’ve been waiting for.
