No, what the judge is saying is that just arguing that you're allowed to do whatever "gun things" you want because of the 2nd amendment in a state district court is specious. You can argue the merits of the specific case based on the precedent in that and other courts that have jurisdiction but simply standing up and arguing baldly that the 2nd amendment lets you make guns and sell them without a serial number doesn't carry water. To make that argument you'd first have to take the F out of ATF and roll back a lot of case law that exists at the federal level that does give states the right to enact some controls.

It's a gross oversimplification of what the judge was trying to say to imply that they don't care about the 2nd amendment or the constitution.

> arguing baldly that the 2nd amendment lets you make guns and sell them without a serial number

I'm not familiar with the details of the case but, reading the thread, it seems this didn't occur if the guns "never even left his house".

Such a thing could have been phrased better by the judge in such a scenario. I personally feel the statement that was made was unprofessional at best.

This has nothing to do with the federal laws that are enforced by ATF ... what he did was totally legally federally.

And he didn't sell them, you pulled that out of your ass.

It doesn't appear you have any familiarity with the case yet you purport to understand what the judge was saying by completely mischaracterizing the case with outright falsehoods. But I suppose if you just tell straight up lies confidently enough, someone will believe you!