This has tremendous implications for the whole country if it goes to the Supreme Court. I am afraid that when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, the idea that owning arms to defend against the government should the need arise has been lost sight of. Meaning we should be able to bare the same arms as the military. Maryland's Judge King specifically said "Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war." That is disturbing to me, and misses a huge point of the 2nd Amendment, framing it as a privilege instead of a right. To me the strongest point regarding the 2nd Amendment and the ownership of "assault weapons" or "weapons of war" or what ever they want to call it is the right to own these weapons to fight against a tyrannical government. But I don't hear that argument at all.