Actually, my formal training is in Constitutional law and history. Four years of post-graduate study on the topic to be exact. Now what would your qualifications be to pontificate on constitutional issues? Please point out the specific errors or over-broad interpretations I used vis-a-vis this case? Again, some specific facts would be nice, rather than broad insults. The Court SPECIFICALLY held that shotguns (with less than 18 inch barrels) could be banned because they serve no military purpose (despite their common use in WWI). The Court SPECIFICALLY held that the militia clause of the Second requires that for arms to be protected they need to serve a military purpose. As such, Military weapons are de facto protected by the Second, and all others are not. That leaves your duck hunting shotgun open to banning. And "assault weapons" legally protected. Of course, it's probably even money that the SCOTUS will decide another Second Amendment case soon. With the Emerson and Silviera Circuit Court opinions in direct conflict, the Court will probably grant cert and hear the latter case. We shall see.