We ban monster trucks from the roads why not ban assault style weapons? What is the point of them?

The question of assault weapons was not addressed by the Supreme Court when, in 2008, it held for the first time in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, went out of his way to say that the right “is not unlimited.”

In each case that has reached a federal appeals court since then, bans on the semiautomatic guns known as assault weapons have been upheld, usually for the same two reasons.

Banning them, the courts have said, does not curtail the right of self-defense protected by the Constitution. There are plenty of other weapons — handguns and regular long guns — available to individuals to protect themselves.

At the same time, the courts have said, states and municipalities have legitimate reasons to ban AR-15 style weapons because of the dangers they pose, to schools, innocent bystanders and police

The majority opinion that Maryland law enforcement officials could not identify a single case in which a Marylander had used a military-style rifle or shotgun, or needed to fire more than 10 rounds, to defend herself.

And while the gun groups had argued that assault weapons such as AR-15s were the most popular sporting rifles in America, the Maryland government argued they also happened to be the most popular guns used in mass shootings.

Mass shooters had used assault rifles in 21 percent of the massacres between 1982 and 2012, and used guns with large-capacity magazines in more than 50 percent of them, King pointed out.

“Put simply,” King wrote, “we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision excluded from such coverage.”

In another case (called Heller II), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines in Washington. The appeals court said in an April 2011 decision that the ban did not impinge on the individual’s right of self-defense. Plus, the court said, the city had plenty of reason to believe that assault weapons were too dangerous in “self-defense situations.” With the ability to fire so many shots so rapidly, the judges said, such weapons pose “grave risks” to bystanders, not to mention police officers who might confront them on the streets.

Another appeals court weighed in April, 2015, when the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld by a 3 to 2 vote a Highland Park, Ill., ordinance that prohibited possession of assault weapons, which the law defined as “any semiautomatic gun that can accept a large-capacity magazine.”

In this case as well, the court said the ordinance left residents “with many self-defense options,” such as handguns. Like the D.C. court, the 7th Circuit cited the dangerousness of assault weapons. “Why else are they weapons of choice in mass shootings?” the court said.

“A ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazine might not prevent shootings in Highland Park … but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs,” the court said.

It’s true, wrote Judge Jose A. Cabranes for a unanimous court, that the laws constituted an “outright” ban, “both broad and burdensome.”

However, the panel said, “semiautomatic assault weapons have been understood to pose unusual risks,” resulting in “more numerous wounds, more serious wounds, and more victims. These weapons are disproportionately used in crime, and particularly in criminal mass shootings like the attack in Newtown. They are also disproportionately used to kill law enforcement officers,” the court said.

and still I agree somewhat.

Few people if any should have high capacity weapons.

Definitely no one under 21.

Definitely no one on psychotic medication.

Definitely no one on a terror watch list or isn't an America citizen.