Federal Judge: Assault Weapons Not Protected by 2nd Amendment

[stanc]

Note the rationale: The 'assault weapon' is derived from military firearms, hence is not protected.

That is not exactly what he is quoted as having said, but if one looks at the wording of the Second Militia Act of 1792, firearms "derived" from military weapons would not be protected, since they are not in common use by the armed forces.

For example, a select-fire M4 carbine or M16 rifle would be protected because they are in common US military use, but a semi-auto AR15 would not be protected since it is not in common use by the military.

Two things wrong: First, almost every firearm action, bolt, lever, semi, etc. is derived from a military design.

A doubtful claim. While some existing guns like the Beretta 92F were indisputably derived from a military small arm, there is no such relationship with many other firearms.

Most modern pistols have little or nothing in common with the first self-loading handgun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGzb-0PJadI

Second, and most important, the 2nd Amendment is about actions related to military endeavors.

Again, not exactly. It's not just about action type. It's about suitability for militia use, which requires commonality in caliber and a number of other characteristics.