Your AR-15 is dangerous and unusual, and isn't protected by the Second Amendment!

So says a federal judge, anyway. This was a case where Maryland banned ownership of certain rifles in thewake of the Sandy Hook shooting. Among the long list of banned rifles were AR-15s and AK-47s.

Naturally, this law was challenged on Constitutional grounds. However, the judge held that these types of rifles were not protected by the Second Amendment, because...get this...the AR-15 is dangerous and unusual.

Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.

(emphasis mine.)

Wait. How did "dangerous" become a disqualifying factor? All rifles are kind of dangerous, if you ask me. That's kind of the point though, isn't it? If a rifle isn't at least a little dangerous, it's not really worth having, is it? I don't even get this "dangerous" thing. The danger of a weapon has almost everything to do with the person holding the weapon, and very little to do with the weapon itself.

Moving on to the real part, this judge ruled that the AR-15 is "unusual". I'm not sure how you would call the most popular rifle in America "unusual". That's just stupid. This is an example of Judge that had already reached a conclusion and simply wrote an opinion that ended up where she wanted it to.