and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes. The fact that many of the protected weapons are somewhat similar in function to those that are banned does not destroy the rationality of the congressional choice. A classification does not fail because it “ ‘is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.’” Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970) (quoting Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 31 S.Ct. 337, 55 L.Ed. 369 (1911)). Further, the ability of the plaintiffs to find experts that may disagree with the congressional findings does not mean that the choices made were irrational. See, e.g., Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793, 806, 117 S.Ct. 2293, 138 L.Ed.2d 834 (1997) (<HOLDING>). The plaintiffs also argue that the ban on
holding that new yorks assisted suicide law had a rational basis therefore comporting with equal protection despite its controversy among medical experts holding that there is a rational basis for the distinction holding that because lawrence declined to address equal protection it did not disturb philips equal protection ruling under the rational basis standard of review holding that a rational basis analysis is applicable to equal protection claims of presentence defendants residing in a halfway house holding that the state law violated equal protection principles