The primary job of federal “judges” is to fabricate excuses, after the fact, in order to justify whatever arbitrary, stupid and/or oppressive crap the politicians want to call “law,” no matter how twisted or idiotic their logic needs to be in order to do so. It is absurd to use the word “honorable” to describe the god-complex jackasses who wear black dresses and wield wooden hammers. They are professional bullshitters, and not much else.
If you think that is too harsh, consider this:
In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of United States v. Miller (307 U.S. 174), ruled that a sawed-off shotgun could be federally outlawed because it is not a military-style weapon, and therefore not covered by the Second Amendment. (That is a bogus argument for several reasons, but I don’t need to get into that here.)
Well, a couple days ago it was reported that a federal judge upheld the Massachusetts ban on “assault weapons” (as they misuse that term) because such weapons are military-style weapons, and therefore the Second Amendment doesn't apply to them. (An even more asinine argument, which again I don't need to address here.)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/assault-weapons-ban-second-amendment-massachusetts/
If any of you still had any respect for the god-complex assholes who pretend to be “judges,” think long and hard about that. In case anyone missed it, let me sum this up:
Federal case law, right now, says that the Second Amendment does not protect any right to own any weapon which:
1 - is not a military-style weapon, or;
2 - is a military-style weapon.
In other words, the federal courts have ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect any right to own any weapon. The two cases mention above, when taken together, mean that the “right to keep and bear arms,” as described in the Second Amendment, applies to exactly zero weapons of any kind.
Yes, the federal judiciary really is that full of shit.