I always thought that all State/County/Municipal judges had both the power *and* responsibility to uphold both the rights of citizens under the laws of the state/county/city he or she serves *and* rights enumerated under the United States Constitution.
For example...if a question arose in his/her court concerning a person's 5th Amendment rights would he/she be inclined to...or allowed to..."punt" as his judge did here?
No court upholds rights.
Courts adjudicate statutory law. Rights are not acknowledged under statutory law - only privileges. That's why, in this case, the judge referred to "someone above the level of this court." Such a "someone" is one of the People possessing rights, which is "above" an administrative court ruling on the limits of mere corporate privilege as specified by statute.
That's why the judge didn't acknowledge the "right" to bear arms here. Because the accused surrendered that right when he applied for a permit. Only corporate persons without rights have to apply for privilege permits.
So the judge said, "yeah, the right to bear arms exists - for the people. But what does that have to do with you? You've self-identified as a mere corporate person, and shown up in a corporate court that has nothing to do with rights. So stop talking about rights - this court doesn't deal with rights, and anyway, you already surrendered them or you wouldn't be here."