when will we get judges who stop defining what they believe the law to be...
where are the tars and feathers...
Right next to the corsets and girdles.
To give the judge a small benefit of some doubt, Pennsylvania law defines automatic knives as having “no common use”.
The judge cited that law.
Also, it appears that not much of a defense was written to support the appeal. There is an excellent article by David Kopel, for example, that I did not see cited anywhere.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/11/knives-and-second-amendment-by-kopel.html
So, the judge just ruled on the Penn law, instead of doing serious research - which is really the defense’ job to provide.