I beg to differ! Weapons with burst and/or full auto firing capability are the NORM when state militia units get together to train.
I was referring to full autos in civilian hands - because any suit to overturn the '86 ban is moot as applies to a "state militia" or the state's National Guard. Those are governmental entities, and I'd sincerely doubt that the people in these organizations are training with their own personal weapons.
Besides, if a state's militia is also the National Guard unit for that state, it can be federalized at the stroke of the President's pen. Ask Rudy Perpich, former guv of Minnesota, who sued to prevent the MN NG from going on manuevers to Central America. In 1990 the Supreme Court put the old collective-rights canard of "the National Guard IS the militia" into its well-earned grave, decapitated, with several wooden stakes through the heart and a generous dose of silver bullets - it was a unanimous decision.
I know your heart is in the right place, but please don't claim that full autos are common because of state militias, even if they are, in fact, common there. Try taking one of those guns home and see what happens - it would not only be theft of government property, but you'd probably be in violation of the NFA and the '86 FOPA for transferring a full auto without a tax stamp. I do understand where you're coming from - you're arguing that full autos are common, therefore they can't be limited according to what Scalia said in Heller - but they aren't common where they matter for a court case to overturn the '86 ban...in the hands of civilians. Of course, the only reason is because of unconstitutional laws - what buyer of an AR or AR clone wouldn't pay an additional $100 or so for "Da Switch?" If there was no NFA and no '86 ban, there'd be at least 5 million full autos (or select fire weapons, which amounts to the same thing in a legal sense) in civilian hands, maybe more.