Bans of so-called 'assault weapons' may not hold up to Supreme Court scrutiny

To be clear, it has always been the contention of this column that there is absolutely no way to reconcile the "shall not be infringed" language of the Second Amendment, with bans of the very arms best suited to maintaining the security of a free state. Whether or not the Supreme Court would see things the same way, though, has been an entirely different question. Ten years ago--and probably less--the idea of SCOTUS striking down such a law would have sounded like idle fantasy.

Now, though, there is a growing body of opinion--sometimes expressed by those not necessarily considered "pro-gun"--that such laws would be skating on thin ice, should a challenge to them ever reach the Supreme Court. UCLA Constitutional law professor Adam Winkler is one who can hardly be considered a fervent gun rights advocate--having written about what he called "the Tea Party's gun problem," and having described Firearms Freedom Act legislation as "insurrectionist." Even so, he has his doubts about a so-called "assault weapons" ban surviving a Supreme Court challenge. As he wrote for the Daily Beast:

More Here