The majority opinion says the Second Amendment doesn’t protect weapons of war. The majority opinion goes out of its way to say that standard semi-automatic rifles are very similar to weapons of war*. It goes as far as to say: “The difference between the fully automatic and semiautomatic versions of those firearms is slight.” This is a very misleading foundation as there are no versions of the AR-15 sold in America that are found on a battlefield or even slightly like fully automatic weapons (which have been defined as having the ability to fire more than one round with a single trigger pull) that have been regulated by the GCA since 1934. Clearly they knew this, as the opinion says: “With limited exceptions, M16s and other machineguns have been banned nationwide since 1986”. The majority then invents rates of fire tests and do calculations based on 30 round magazines, which were banned in Maryland even BEFORE the FSA went into effect. This clears the way to pick and choose which parts of Heller should apply. Like the word “and” sitting right between “dangerous and unusual weapons“. Assuming the Court wants to call the weapon dangerous (aren’t all guns?), it’s certainly not an unusual one, being one of the most common rifles sold and owned in America. Hell, it’s even legal in NJ (for now). The majority opinion, in attempting to support it’s claim that it’s “unusual and or dangerous” says “Large-capacity magazines are a feature common, but not unique, to the banned assault weapons, many of which are capable of accepting magazines of thirty, fifty, or even 100 rounds.” * let’s ignore, for a moment, the logical leap Heller takes that would have banned muskets under this definition at the time of the ratification of the second amendment itself.