I don't think that Wikipedia article is right . . . I read Australian news articles that said that lever-action rifles were banned. Maybe my info is wrong, but . . . .
Heller's "scope" argument was over whether the government could ban whatever gun "it" wanted, as long as others were available for use. That was the whole point of the DC law - handguns were banned, but "shotguns and rifles were available." I think that was an important detail. Moonbats routinely threw out the "you only should be allowed to own muskets" tirade whenever the argument came up pre-Heller. The Brady loons already are building the case that Ar15's (the most popular rifle in America) somehow fail Heller's "dangerous and unusual" test for banning.
Yes, Heller can be reversed soon by a later court. Look at the gay-rights line of cases. Less than 10 years after affirming the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws, the USSC reversed itself. If anything should happen to Justice Kennedy, hang on because it will be bumpy ride after his replacement (Cass Sunstein?! Harold Koh?! Hillary C?!) gets on the Court.
Heller's "scope" argument was over whether the government could ban whatever gun "it" wanted, as long as others were available for use. That was the whole point of the DC law - handguns were banned, but "shotguns and rifles were available." I think that was an important detail. Moonbats routinely threw out the "you only should be allowed to own muskets" tirade whenever the argument came up pre-Heller. The Brady loons already are building the case that Ar15's (the most popular rifle in America) somehow fail Heller's "dangerous and unusual" test for banning.
Yes, Heller can be reversed soon by a later court. Look at the gay-rights line of cases. Less than 10 years after affirming the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws, the USSC reversed itself. If anything should happen to Justice Kennedy, hang on because it will be bumpy ride after his replacement (Cass Sunstein?! Harold Koh?! Hillary C?!) gets on the Court.