Again you are refusing to accept what was decided. Nobody cares what you believe.
He writes what was protected and what was not. PROTECTED FIREARMS “COMMONLY IN USE”.
RESTRICTED “UNUSUAL AND DANGEROUS”.
My point is, we cannot just rely on a 5-4 SCOTUS decision that still allows a fair amount of restrictive legislation. And that, IMO, is a far more rational approach than thumping on one's chest.
Oh, and if my position is so off-base, then why did SCOTUS refuse to consider state-level AR-15 bans?