Excerpts:

Heller, however, does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment…

The difference between the M-16 and semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 is that the M-16 allows the shooter to fire in either automatic or semiautomatic mode, while semiautomatic rifles fire only in semiautomatic mode. (Plaintiffs’ Response to AG’s SUF ¶¶ 7, 10, Doc. 92-1.) However, based on the evidence presented by the Attorney General, this is a distinction without a difference. In enacting the now-defunct federal ban on assault rifles, Congress found that their rate of fire––300 to 500 rounds per minute––makes semiautomatic rifles “virtually indistinguishable in practical effect from machineguns…”

Moreover, even if the ability to fire in automatic mode were significant…it is a relatively simple task to convert a semiautomatic weapon to automatic fire…

Plaintiffs present no evidence to meaningfully distinguish the semiautomatic rifles at issue from the M-16. Accordingly, the Court concludes that semiautomatic rifles within the AWCA’s scope are virtually indistinguishable from M-16s and thus are not protected by the Second Amendment. Thus, the AWCA does not burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment…