2A and "Infringement"

[Glaug-Eldare]

36. 3 might survive,

but remember that new restrictions are generally held to "intermediate scrutiny." That is, the government has to prove that a restriction substantially advances a legitimate government interest. Imaginary, hypothetical, or trivial gains won't justify a law, and "legitimate government interest" doesn't include soothing its conscience, ending private gun ownership, or making people feel safe. For instance, if the government defends a magazine capacity ban on the grounds that it improves public safety, they're going to have to show evidence that it actually works, or a credible argument that it will work. I don't believe the evidence is, or ever will be there.

I don't believe #1 would pass the "common use" test, and the problem with #2 is that it would be so pointless (sales would simply shift to other similar models) that it couldn't possibly be seen as "substantial." I was thinking about that earlier today -- if you had an individual ban on every single rifle model, each one would be narrow in scope and not an extreme burden on the right. Taken together, they would constitute a total rifle ban. If they're all unconstitutional together, how can they be constitutional separately?

Depending on how it's implemented, #3 might qualify as advancing the general welfare so long as it creates no severe barriers to ownership or carry. I don't see much chance of #4 actually having any effect whatsoever on public safety, so I believe it would fail the intermediate scrutiny test.