Again with the “sporting purposes”. Sorry judge, that ain’t what it’s for. This must be overturned on that basis alone.
The “sporting purposes” must be a poison pill. A federal judge can’t be that stupid, can he ?/s/?
The “sporting purposes” nonsense started with the 1968 Gun Control Act (and the language thereof was taken, pretty much verbatim after translation, from the Nazi weapons law of the 1930s that disarmed any potential opposition there.
However, the 2nd Amendment predates 1968 by quite a bit - and “sporting purposes” is not something considered (except as a side benefit) by the Founders when drafting or ratifying the 2nd. That Amendment is about one thing, and one thing ONLY - maintaining in the hands of the population at large the ability to do in the then-future what they, themselves, had done only 15 years earlier: overthrow a tyrannical government. They were setting up a government of, by and for the people - and understood from their studies of history and their own personal experience that power is oftentimes abused, and sometimes to the point of justifying a separation from a prior authority (see the Declaration of Independence for the “why” of justified revolt).
This judge is ONLY a District Court judge. The ruling needs to be appealed to the Circuit, and then to the Supremes if not ruled upon correctly. Box magazine-fed semi-auto rifles are VERY commonplace, and if you add in pistols with similar operating functions then you are looking at a majority of firearms sold for the last few decades, and possibly a majority of firearms existing in civilian hands in this nation. “Heller” says that you CANNOT just ban an entire class of firearms in common use.