This concept ...

.
... is a very interesting one:

For the weapon to be protected by the federal constitution, citizens must to be able to “keep” it and to “bear” it — and also to discriminate with it. This is why a handgun is quite obviously protected while a cruise or nuclear missile is quite obviously not.

I'm on record as being a 2nd amendment absolutist, leaving the fact that high-yield conventional and nuclear weapons are simply out of economic reach of most citizens to regulate their use. The idea that one must be able to discriminate (selectively target) with a protected arm is a novel one.

If you consider the discrimination argument as controlling, then most arms that utilize an explosive would be outside of constitutional protection since they are indiscriminate weapons. One could make the argument, however that these weapons aren't typically used for target practice outside of a designated firing range, but rather in a combat scenario where combatants aren't directing fire at non-combatants.

But that argument is way in the future. It's uplifting to hear that at least one justice doesn't automatically agree that some NFA arms are taboo.

pm