The opinion does seem to be helpful in that regard. Not sure though how it effects select fire/ full auto.
"Unusually dangerous?" Not really.
"Unusually dangerous?" Not really.
I agree with "not really." Full autos have NEVER been illegal under federal law, you just have to pay for a tax stamp (which is more of a fee to investigate you and pay for the process than anything else at this point) and fill out some paperwork. Oh, yeah, and pay $10K or more for a gun that should cost about $1,200 at most.
Most of us can, if we have a fat enough wallet, get a full auto. In fact, we can get an M16 manufactured on 5/18/1986 if we can find it - but the absurd and (IMHO) unconstitutional '86 ban says that if you want to get a companion M16 with identical features manufactured on the same production line in the same factory a mere 2 days later, you can't do that.
Further, full autos aren't so common now, but that's ONLY because of the ban. Who among AR15 or M4gery owners wouldn't pay another $50 or $100 for an auto sear plus the $200 tax stamp for "da switch?" Who wouldn't buy "da switch" and drop it in for a few hundred bucks? I say that they WOULD be common, literally 500,000 or more, if no one had to worry about the JBTs coming to your house, breaking the door down, shooting or rifle-butting you, kicking your pregnant wife in the belly, stomping the cat, etc., all before giving you a long expense-paid visit to the Graybar Hotel. Also, who can say that full autos aren't common among armed forces - even police forces - in the present world? How's a militiaman to perform his duties without a suitable weapon? Look at Switzerland - most of the male population over age 18 either has, or used to have, a fully automatic weapon in his closet, with ammo.
I can't wait for the '86 ban to be challenged. I think that we win - it is functionally identical to the now-defunct DC handgun ban (OOOOH, how I love to write that), and should be equally defunct itself fairly soon.