From the opinion:
“Coming directly to the question whether the weapons and feeding devices covered by the challenged legislation enjoy Second Amendment protection, at the first step of the Bruen analysis, we conclude that the answer is no. We come to this conclusion because these assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are much more like machineguns and militarygrade weaponry than they are like the many different types of firearms that are used for individual self-defense (or so the legislature was entitled to conclude). Indeed, the AR-15 is almost the same gun as the M16 machinegun. The only meaningful distinction, as we already have noted, is that the AR-15 has only semiautomatic capability (unless the user takes advantage of some simple modifications that essentially make it fully automatic), while the M16 operates both ways. Both weapons share the same core design, and both rely on the same patented operating system.”
https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1720548034839531760
One Excerpt:
Alright, a quick reaction thread. The majority first, written by Judge Woods and joined by Judge Easterbrook.His quotes from the opinion and his reactions are a multi-Tweet thread. Excellent reading.
Already off to a horrible start. What falls outside the Second Amendment's protected "arms" has nothing to do with a "military side". Plenty of firearms the military uses now or has used in the past are common among American civilians.
"Arms" refers to "weapons of offence, or armor of defence". There is no qualifications about exempting those arms used by soldiers.
The contempt for Heller and its progeny is palpable.
Remember that their "many years" is just from around the 1930s to 2008. In the 19th century, all major commentators agreed that the Second Amendment applied to an individual right.
This is bull. This can’t stand.