I know, you can see what he thought of assault bans in the dissent he joined in the Highland Park case.
from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternativesavailable for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawfulpurpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawfuluses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic fire-arms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five millionAmericans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizenswho own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citi-zens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keepsuch weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
So, as we can plainly see, anyone claiming Scalia was opening the door to assault weapon bans in Heller, is chock full of ■■■■■
