Assault weapons are no more useful for self-defense than are many other handguns, rifles, and shotguns that aren’t prohibited by assault weapons bans. Assault weapons bans might well be pointless, and might offend gun owners who want the freedom to choose precisely what sorts of guns they own. But this need not make assault weapons bans unconstitutional, if the courts focus on whether the law substantially burdens self-defense. [More]Which makes me wonder why this is an approach you recommend, Professor.
It also makes me wonder about your qualifications to define tactical situations a citizen might find himself in, why you purposely put off discussing the tyranny-resisting potential enabled by the Second Amendment and avoid exploring founding intent.
So I can listen to you, or I can listen to, say, Mr. Coxe:
The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the foederal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.Freedom is much too important to leave to law professors. Even ones generally recognized as being on "our" side.