Outright banning is only legally permissible when a) the state can prove that they are able to NARROWLY infringe your rights and b) that they can demonstrate si

Outright banning is only legally permissible when a) the state can prove that they are able to NARROWLY infringe your rights and b) that they can demonstrate significant gains and c) if the firearm to be banned is not "one in common use at the time". For affirmations of this, you can reference the Supreme Court decisions in DC v Heller (and to a lesser degree, Chicago v McDonald). Both cases were notable for having overturned outright firearms bans in both DC and Chicago as they were Constitutional infringements. It's also worth noting that they're both relatively recent cases. The AR15 is the most common rifle sold in America today, and while a 1994 Assault Weapons ban was able to get passed, I genuinely don't believe it could happen today. There have been a plethora of recent Supreme Court cases affirming that citizens have the right to bear arms, even though the state might wish to prohibit it, and as these are SCOTUS decisions, they of course apply at a federal level. In the 94 ban, there hadn't been any challenges to gun control legislation since US v Miller, in 1939, and that was at the very least an odd case as Miller was tried in absentia, and actually died before the case concluded with an unfavorable verdict for him. Regardless, the cases are piling up in support of the second amendment, with Illinois' firearms ban having been affirmed as unconstitutional just a few days ago (though the initial ruling happened sometime last year). I realize this is a large rant in response to a fairly small statement, but I think that precedent pretty much eliminates either a regressive licensing system or blanket banning (on firearms in common use), though of course there may be other strategies (which I'm sure we'll find out as many states are passing clearly Unconstitutional legislation).