No surprise here. She used the bogus 'two step analysis' which includes a 'means-ends scrutiny' (not strict scrutiny, like used with pretty much every other protected right beside the 2A). It is commonly used and there has been plenty of discussion on it's total misapplication and how applying this bogus test will allow one to conclude any law they wish to be lawful.
For example, here is a quote from this ruling.
"Maryland’s law banning the weapons is valid without further analysis".
Step one passed! No analysis needed. Gee, that was easy. I mean, we really need not go any further, but to at least make it sort of like I'm following some sort of legitimate process...
On to step two.
But it only gets better.
"although the plaintiffs may believe that particular assault weapons and LCMs are well-suited for self-defense, there is no evidence to support their claims."
See, as long as I say there is no evidence, there is no evidence. Voodoo magic like. She is that good. None whatsoever.
But lets just get down to it. I'll quote, then explain what she really means if you read between the lines (or really, not even!).
First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed
After carefully ignoring all evidence and facts to the contrary, I can pretend that something that is obviously common isn't, and provide no further reasoning to how I came to said conclusion.
The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used.
I will mis-characterize an obvious truth so it looks bad though when using even the smallest amount of thought will make you realize this points to the exact opposite of my position. Guns when used to kill people in fact kill more people than guns that aren't used to kill people. Yes, I seriously said that like it was a valid point. No joke.
no evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense
Catch 22 bitch! You want to use it for a valid, lawful purpose? Sucker! By making it illegal it will be impossible for anyone to ever use it for a lawful purpose!
they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective
More Catch 22 coming at you, but I won't just stop there. Full blown hypocrisy coming at you know! I am so smitten I can come right out and say that these weapons may be even MORE EFFECTIVE, but instead of saying 'defensive' I'll say 'offensive', though really that is the exact same thing. Maybe you will overlook that
minor (chuckle) detail.
See, there you have it.
1. Ignore all evidence to the contrary, then claim it doesn't exist.
2. Mis-characterize obvious facts so they seem bad despite that not being even close to the truth.
3. Create a paradoxical situation making it impossible to avoid due to blatant contradictory reasonings.
4. Be as hypocritical as possible.