Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) really is fearless when it comes to taking on the old-guard senators on the left. Although Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) never really answers the question posed by Cruz, she did mention Heller a couple of times.
Scroll to the bottom of the page for the video, but some analysis first. Feinstein references the three limits as stated in the majority opinion of District of Columbia v. Heller. On page 54 they certainly do note the right is not unlimited.
…nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Those are the three conditions referenced by Feinstein in the video, she claims two of them apply here. Do you see anything in that Heller section referencing the type of weapons prohibited? Nope. Let me see if I can help Feinstein out a bit. Earlier in the majority decision on page 52, they reference the 1939 United States v Miller case, which is very specific fully automatic machine guns, which are not typically possessed by citizens for lawful purposes.
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.
A point that Feinstein and the gun-control crowd need to understand is that when they try to reference the United States Constitution or case law, they have no friggin’ clue what they are talking about. In short, the semi-automatic rifles Feinstein and company are trying to ban are certainly in common use at this time. There are millions of sporting rifles in the style of the AR, AK or other variant currently owned and used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Ten, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20 and 30 round magazines are certainly in common use. Heller in no way supports Feinstein’s law.
Notice the condescending attitude from Feinstein, and the fact she never answers the question posed by Cruz. By the way … what are “imploding” bullets?