“[Legislation] cannot constitutionally result in the prohibition of the possession of those arms which, by the common opinion and usage of law-abiding people, are proper and legitimate to be kept upon private premises for the protection of person and property.”

To narrow in scope. 

Way to general and vague. By example: "the common opinion" is political speak for the oligarchy (god government) determining what the "democracy" really desires and usage is double speak because the term is limited by other/more "legislation". Who are law-abiding people and who determines that? The State of Michigan has already thrown away the constitutional legal premise of "the laws of nature and of nature's God". "proper and legitimate" by who's definition, the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land, that large segment in Michigan of Sharia Law supporters advocating the advancement of Islam by violence; who? The statement: "kept upon private premises for the protection of person and property" indicates the elimination of the right to keep and bear arms (against all enemies, foreign and domestic); the right being replaced with a limitation by the god state determining what the helots, serfs and slaves can be allowed.

Adding to above, "what the "democracy" really desires. The U.S.A. founders detested and feared democracy over all other forms of government (even monarchies). A "republican form of government" (Article IV Section 4, U.S. Constitution was "to secure . . . rights" (Declaration of Independence), i.e., inalienable rights thus, protecting the individual sovereigns at law from "common opinion".