The article does not identify the Federal statute the DoJ can act with. A State judge ruling on State laws is, I would think, a matter for the State. The next step is to fight the law(s) in Federal court. [More]
The Second Amendment and the Constitution being “the supreme Law of the Land” isn’t enough? They’re not shy about citing the First Amendment:
The United States has an interest in protecting the individual rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Also, like we noted in the “Ashcroft Petition“:
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to the people of each state the full benefit of all rights recognized under the U.S. Constitution, and Americans living in the state of California are being subjected to gross infringements of their Second Amendment rights and therefore are being treated unequally under the law;
And as for federal courts, sure, a “UNITED STATES’ STATEMENT OF INTEREST IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT” would be a big help.
But they like what the First Amendment says.
The Second? Not so much.
Like popular speech, popular rights don’t need as much protection as the not so popular ones.