My information, although concededly secondhand, is to the effect that this assertion is flatly wrong, that these guns are rarely used in crimes. But let's put the question of truth aside from moment and look at the judge's logic. If these guns in fact are used in the commission of crimes that means that she is forcing innocent law-abiding civilians into victimhood because she is depriving them of the necessary means to defend themselves against these advanced weapons. She admits as much:
Finally, despite the plaintiffs’ claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions.
She is forcing our fellow citizens to go naked before their enemies. The only justification for this is to believe that the ban guns will actually remove guns from the hands of criminals. Gun bans do no such thing, if anything, they remove guns from the hands of innocent victims and grant criminals a monopoly in their use.
A look at this judge's photograph and the knowledge that she was appointed during the Clinton administration leads one to believe that she is one of Hillary's lesbians who is typical of leftist judges who are systematically departing from constitutional exegesis in favor of a judge crafted leftist tyranny. In imposing that tyranny leftist judges must somehow turn away from the Constitution and redefine it making it mean precisely the opposite of its original purpose. Here is an example of how leftist judges routinely do this:
Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.
If she can confine the right to keep and bear arms to "self-defense in the home," she can proceed to eviscerate the right to keep and bear arms for all other purposes and ultimately even for the purpose of in home self-defense. Redefine the Constitution and then, when it ceases to have any practical meaning, simply write it out of existence.
