Age-old Supreme Court jurisprudence already contradicts the recent Fourth Circuit ruling about so-called “assault weapons”. It was addressed in United States v. Miller, where they declared that “The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.” The case was decided against Miller because nobody was there to represent him and to declare that a short-barreled shotgun was such a weapon.

I disagree with that principle. I believe the militia clause exists to amplify the importance of “shall not be infringed”, to make it obvious that doing so is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers the security of a free state? But we can stick with Miller for addressing the Fourth Circuit ruling.

Semiautomatic rifles firing medium-caliber rounds are without-a-doubt appropriate for use in an organized militia. Full-auto would be more appropriate, but declaring the National Firearms Act (and GCA ’68 and the Brady Bill) to be unconstitutional will have to wait for Trump’s second Supreme Court appointment. Yeah. I know. Won’t happen. But a man can dream.