Fixed mag AR-15 clone

[Sandman5150]

The supreme court did rule in favor of "gun owners" today, or as I like to say, they just reaffirmed what we already know - The 2nd amendment is an individual right, not a collective right.

In any case, the court did not - by any means - make it illegal to ban "assault weapons" or make reasonable regulation to restrict/regulate firearms. It basically, specifically, said that you cannot prevent a law abiding citizen from owning a handgun and possessing it inside their home.

I have not read the 100+ page ruling yet, but I do not believe it even touched on assault weapons and other "regulated" firearms.

The full effect of the ruling is yet to be known...it will take a number of years and many more cases for that to be realized. Scalia and the majority spoke about M-16's, ie "Assault weapons" and said this...

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.