I am. I have been doing my own research on the matter. I am open to any objective data (or reasonable close to it; I am reasonable; we all have our biases) you can provide.
Well, Luther asserted that the deuterocanonical books were apocrypha that were not originally part of the scripture. He had been deceived by their absence from the Jewish scriptures of his day. For a Protestant acknowledgment that the deuterocanonical books were part of a Pre-Christian canon, see here: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-73165 (Qumran)
For acknowledgment that the Alexandrian canon -- the one universally read by Hellenic Jews at the time of Christ -- included "additional chapters" of Daniel and Esther, see here: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-73164
Or here, describing how the post-Christian Council of Jamnia is where the Jews first rejected the deuterocanonicals, in 70 AD: http://biblescripture.net/Canon.html
Given that we KNOW for certainty that Luther was wrong, I can't BEGIN to tell you how the "Reformers" justify excluding the deuterocanonicals.
But this is just wierd:
Luther and the Reformers claim "sola scriptura": If it isn't in the bible, it's a false doctrine. (Of course sola scriptura isn't in the bible.)
But at the Diet of Worms, the Catholic Church convincingly proved to Luther that the doctrines he so detested actually WERE in scripture.
Luther then reasoned that if what SEEMED to be scripture contained doctrines he hated, it couldn't possibly be true scripture. Seizing apon the fact that the Jews didn't consider many of hte most problemmatic books to be scripture, Luther used that as a justification that they weren't scripture. (Of course, he was unbothered by the fact that the Jews accepted NONE of the New TEstament...)
But Luther was ignorant of two matters. 1. There were other defenses of the doctrines he hated in the bible; the Diet of Worms merely stated some of the easiest defenses. 2. The books WERE, in fact, treated as scripture by Jews until the Council of Jamnia in 70 AD.
At this time, the assertion that the deuterocanonicals had ever, at any time, been considered non-scriptural by any orthodox Christian* at any time prior to Luther is so strongly refuted that the assertion constitues an outright deliberate lie by any knowledgeable person who repeats it, but unfortunate the lie is so pervasive in American society, it is cited as fact in many of the very same reference books which include the positive debunking of the fact, including the Oxford Biblical Commentary, the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, etc. Hence, it is commonly repeated as "common knowledge" by many people who plainly acknowledge its falseness!
(*By orthodox Christian, I mean only to exclude Judaizers and those who sought to exclude all traces of Judaism from Christianity, such as the Manicheans.)