I agree with this. Judge wanted to get rid of the charge he was clearly guilty for, and he knows it. All he had to do was look at the intent of the legislature. I bet there is a memo somewhere, or executive summary, stating the purpose of the law. The purpose was not what happened that night. It is absurd. He could have defended himself with a Glock. Few of the protesters were armed. They rarely show up with weapons. They were being fired upon by the police with tear gas all night. No one shot at the police. Even if the other charges were correct; he violated that law. He would have been found guilty. He would have a record and he would have immediately lost his gun rights. The judge is an embarrassment to the profession.