"The Government may not deprive law-abiding citizens of their guaranteed right to self-defense as a means of offense," McGlynn stated in his ruling, underlining the fundamental right individuals have to bear arms for personal protection.
Judge McGlynn noted, "There are those who seek to usher in a sort of post-Constitution era where the citizens' individual rights are only as important as they are convenient to a ruling class," highlighting concerns over governmental overreach.
In his decision, McGlynn emphasized, "The oft-quoted phrase that 'no right is absolute' does not mean that fundamental rights precariously subsist subject to the whims, caprice, or appetite of government officials or judges," criticizing limitations on constitutional rights.
The ruling stems from arguments presented during a four-day bench trial, where plaintiffs argued the banned weapons are commonly used for legal purposes such as self-defense and hunting, contrasting with government claims of their necessity for public safety.
Collection
[
|
...
]