Assault Weapons?

I often answer questions on Quora. Most of my writing there is Second Amendment and firearms related. I noticed this Question, today. I was not particularly kind, and purposely ignored the follow-up question…

• Is there any logical reason why ownership of assault weapons (rifles with features that look like assault weapons) is protected by law in the US? Is there a reduced quality of life to not be allowed by law to own such weapons?

First off,

Neither of them, are “assault weapons”. The top image is a Delton Sport Lite, AR-15 pattern, sporting/hunting rifle, sold only as a semi-automatic firearm.

The bottom image is a US military M4 carbine. This is select-fire (both semi-automatic and full automatic). This is an assault rifle. but it is not an assault weapon.

THIS…

…is an assault weapon, along with a sampling of its ammunition.

Just so you know what you are talking about. Words have specific meanings, to describe specific things.

Now that semantics are out of the way, on to the question…

There is one logical reason why “assault weapons” [sic] are protected in the United States. The Supreme Court says so. To borrow from another of my answers…

In 1939 there was the Miller, Supreme Court case, widely believed to have been pushed as a method of supporting “The National Firearms Act”, wherein it was decided that sawed off shotguns were not protected under the Second Amendment. In order to do this, the Court defined which firearms were protected under the Second Amendment…

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power... [constitutional militia authority, Art I, Sec 8, C 15]

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

US v Miller
Justice James Clark McReynolds
Supreme Court of the United States

[Emphasis Added]

From the emphasized text, how could one better define an “assault weapon”? Some may argue that Heller changed this, however in the majority opinion, Justice Scalia specifically stated that the Court’s opinion did not negate the Miller opinion.

From this opinion we can gather that a firearm cannot be restricted because it is a “weapon of war”. This opinion states that arming the militia was one of the specific purposes of the Second Amendment. Firearms are protected if they have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and further, if they are any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

This definition is not exclusive, because it makes no mention of hunting firearms, or sporting firearms, and Heller demonstrated that firearms for personal and home defense were protected under the Second Amendment, as well, however, it does exclusively protect “assault weapons”.

Comments from the Peanut Gallery: