“thats not what the equal protection clause is about”
They’re not really making an “equal protection” argument, they are making a “disparate impact” argument. Unfortunately, in our current legal system, it actually is a legitimate legal argument, no matter how preposterous it seems.
So, I should sue to guarantee my right to possess nuclear, biological and chemical weapons under such an argument?
Our government already possesses them, so that rationale should be on the same level as theirs, regardless of the fact that I’m pointing at the military which is run by our government.
Sounds like more lawyer fees for the unscrupulous.