[chris from pa]

in DC v Heller they held that anything that is commonly used for lawful purposes is protected by the 2nd Amendment. They even mention the M-16 by name. Here's one write up with more details: http://common-sen.se/awb2013-unconstitutional/

[ctdonath2]

The M16 footnote in Heller is, methinks, widely misunderstood. It opined that if M16s may be prohibited, then the militia clause is severed from the 2ndA rendering that verbiage meaningless; since one presumes the Founding Fathers did not include meaningless verbiage, then M16s must be legal. Seems the author was all but saying “bring on a case overturning 922(o) already, it’s a slam dunk”.