See below...
Yes? Pretty sure you are.
Doing *that* would probably be illegal.
Also potentially illegal.
You are currently allowed to own a Fiat. I suspect the law would take a dim view of you using it to mow down a bunch of kids... or cops. Same with an AR-15, AK-47, Tommygun, revolver, flamethrower. But the fact that you might use your Fiat improperly doesn't mean other people are barred the use of Fiats. Same applies to arms.
The current understanding via the USSC is that citizens are allowed to keep and bear arms that are in common use. The only bannable weapons are those that are *not* in common use and which are "particularly dangerous." Weapons that are "dangerous" *and* in common use may not be banned. One might argue that nukes might be excessively dangerous, but they're certainly not in common use. Therefore a ban on them is *currently* not unconstitutional.
1. Bruen’s step one “plain text” analysis is based on the text. It is not an empirical inquiry.
2. The Court should once again make clear that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.
3. The “common use” inquiry focuses on whether an arm is commonly possessed by American citizens.
4. The relative “dangerousness” of a weapon is irrelevant if the weapon is commonly possessed for lawful purposes.
5. “Corpus linguistics” analysis remains unfruitful in the Second Amendment context.
6. All American citizens are among “the people.”
The AR-15 is the most common firearm in the United States, as often admitted even by gun grabbers. Bans on them are unConstitutional and unAmerican.
...
