A biased article that tries to downplay the legal realities it actually cites. For instance.
"Before Heller, most courts considered 2nd Amendment protections to be limited to the possession of firearms in connection with the need for militia service."
This is not only false on it's face but directly controverted in Heller citing that nevermind individual court cases several state constitutions went so far as to particularly make the outright distinction. From Heller:
That of the nine state constitutional protections for the right to bear arms enacted immediately after 1789 at least seven unequivocally protected an individual citizen’s right to self-defense is strong evidence that that is how the founding generation conceived of the right. And with one possible exception that we discuss in Part II–D–2, 19th-century courts and commentators interpreted these state constitutional provisions to protect an individual right to use arms for self-defense.
Then there is the simultaneous acknowledgement and attempt to diminish the importance of "in common use at the time". The AR platform in particular is not just "common" but full on ubiquitous at this point. So much so that those people that aren't selling an agenda commonly just refer to them as "modern sporting rifles" because they, quite literally, are nothing more than modernized versions of the same theme. And by "modern" I mean been on sale for civilian use since 1963.
The only thing of any worth in that article to me was acknowledging this looming gap between what has already happened in some states that SCOTUS has not yet addressed. I see no way that stays the case for much longer. An outright federal level "ban", as in outright making illegal to possess, seems unlikely to the point there may be some states outright reject enforcement of the decision. Exactly what could be argued short of that could be more legally interesting.
EO
