And "self defense"? What do these "judges" think self defense is? What if you have to "self defense" yourself against a tyrannical government (you know, like the one not mentioned in the 2A!)?
I had to check the byline to see if this was satire.
So the AK is bad because it isn’t “needed” for hunting or self-defense. And then they use the Miller case in their reasoning, but in that case they ruled against the sawed-off shotgun because they thought it wasn’t a military weapon.
And the kicker on what I thought was satire was when they said “the AK is as dangerous and odd as the sawed-off shotgun”. Well so is a rabid monkey in your pants.
“What a serious misrepresentation and interpretation of the 2A. Obviously, these “judges” are unaware of the history behind the 2A, that or they don’t care.”
It’s the latter, I’m sure.