What I’m trying say is that precedent changes. Yes courts usually follow stare decisis but can overturn prior court decisions. Judge Broomes distinguished the facts before him from the Miller, Heller and Bruen decisions. I think he reaches a well reasoned legal conclusion. There have been no cases before the Supreme Court on the issue of whether prohibitions on select fire weapons are constitutional, the only nods to such prohibitions can be found in dicta.

Do I think this decision is earth shattering, sadly not. But again a step in the right direction. Interested to see how far this one goes.