4 the reason that is the case, it cannot be prohibited. id. this is true even if the government believes citizens choice is unwise because the weapon they have chosen is unsuitable for self-defense id. it is not difficult to understand why heller established this rule. everyone knows that common sense gun law is a progressive euphemism that means any gun law we can get away with up to and including total confiscation. it follows that no gun is ever deemed suitable for civilian use by politicians bent on disarming the american people. in heller, d.c. and its amici argued vociferously that handguns are a scourge on society and long guns are much better for self-defense. heller, 554 u.s. at 629. now the state argues that handguns are great for self-defense and rifles like the ar-15 are wholly unsuitable for that purpose. pet.app. 42a. in short, arms-ban advocates switched their pre-heller strategy of rif les good, handguns bad to a post-heller strategy of handguns good, rifles bad. see mark w. smith, what part of in common use dont you understand?: how courts have defied heller in arms-ban cases-again, 2023 harv. j.l. & pub. poly per curiam 41, 8 (2023). if those arguments failed in heller, there is no reason they should succeed now. in summary, judge richardson was correct in his masterful dissenting opinion. pet.app. 96a211a. this court looks to the usage of the american people to determine which weapons they deem most suitable for lawful purposes . . . it is thus the customary practices of the american peoplenot the uninformed meditations of federal judgesthat determine which weapons are protected by the second amendment. pet.app. 182a.
United States