Bearing Arms Columnist Says 'Weapon of War' Label Supports AR-15 Protection

In a Bearing Arms column responding to an op-ed, Tom Knighton argues that calling the AR-15 a weapon of war strengthens, not weakens, the case for protecting it under the Second Amendment.

Key points

• The case: Knighton notes the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in December in Viramontes v. Cook County, which challenges state and local AR-15 bans.
• The two sides: According to the op-ed he quotes, challengers say the rifles are "in common use" for lawful reasons including self-defense, while the governments defending the bans call them better suited to war than to civilian life.
• The op-ed's view: Its authors, who say they wrote a friend-of-the-court brief for the Cato Institute, contend that small arms a soldier would historically carry sit at the center of the Second Amendment because of its militia clause.
• Knighton's response: He agrees with that conclusion but disputes the op-ed's claim that neither side has made the militia point, saying Bearing Arms already has.
• A wider claim: Knighton writes that nearly every firearm type, plus swords, knives, spears and archery gear, has some tie to warfare and counts as protected "arms."

Quick take

Knighton says the argument is not new but is worth repeating. He writes that the founding-era militia had rifled guns with more range and accuracy than British troops carried, and he takes that as evidence the Founders knew what weapons of war looked like and did not restrict them.

Read the full story at Bearing Arms.