This has been an interesting week for me. I’m working on a project where I’m being required to do much more frontend work than I normally do. This required me to actually learn Bootstrap’s grid system. It is astonishing how much I learn when I read the code instead of just reading the documentation.

Another part of this was learning about citations and what they mean. This became critical when reading Judge Lindsay Jenkins’ Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding the Illinois AWB + LCM ban.

Consider the following: “561 U.S. 742, 767 (2010)”. This is an official reference to McDonald. “561” is volume 561 of U.S. which is “United States Reports”. The same case can be referenced via the “S.Ct.” reporter, which is “Supreme Court Reporter”. And finally, there is “L.Ed.” and “L.Ed.2d) which is the “United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers’ Edition”.

The next number, in our example “742”, is the page number in the printed reference. The “767” after that is the page from which this particular quotation was taken.

Here is the quote of interest to me:

In that vein, the Court noted that “[f]rom the early days of the Republic, through the Reconstruction era, to the present day, States and municipalities … banned altogether the possession of especially dangerous weapons.” Id. at 899–900.
Herrera v. Raoul, Memorandum Opinion and Order, (2023) ECF No. 75

Id. is Latin for “idem” meaning “the same”. In citations, it means the same citation just used. This means I have to find the correct citation. This particular Judge is good with his citations. Whereas most people put the citation immediately after the quotation, this Judge puts them close. He mentions McDonald v. City of Chicago and a line later he gives the citation.

This reference is to pages 899 through 900. Somewhere on those two pages of the printed reporter will be the quote he is citing.

Now I don’t remember anything in Heller, McDonald, or Bruen that said that there was a history or tradition of banning the possession of especially dangerous weapons. The judge quoted them; therefore it must be there. Maybe he pulled it out of context?

The text of the McDonald opinion is available from multiple sources. What isn’t available from most of those sources is a version with the page numbers as used in the cited reporter.

After a bit of looking, I found it at the Library of Congress. I verified it was the correct version because it starts at page 742. Time to find his quote.

Oh shit, there it is:

From the early days of the Republic, through the Reconstruction era, to the present day, States and municipalities have placed extensive licensing requirements on firearm acquisition, restricted the public carriage of weapons, and banned altogether the possession of especially dangerous weapons, including handguns. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 683–687 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (reviewing colonial laws); Cornell & DeDino, A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control, 73 Ford. L. Rev. 487, 502–516 (2004) (reviewing pre-Civil War laws); Brief for Thirty-four Professional Historians and Legal Historians as Amici Curiae 4–22 (reviewing Reconstruction-era laws); Winkler, Scrutinizing the Second Amendment, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 683, 711–712, 716–726 (2007) (reviewing 20th-century laws); see generally post, at 931–941. After the 1860’s just as before, the state courts almost uniformly upheld these measures: Apart from making clear that all regulations had to be constructed and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner, the Fourteenth Amendment hardly made a dent. And let us not forget that this Court did not recognize any non-militia-related interests under the Second Amendment until two Terms ago, in Heller. Petitioners do not dispute the city of Chicago’s observation that “[n]o other substantive Bill of Rights protection has been regulated nearly as intrusively” as the right to keep and bear arms. Municipal Respondents’ Brief 25.
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) at 899-900

That is pretty damning language. Why didn’t I know about this?

Oh, here it is, “Stevens, J., dissenting”. Yes, that is Associate Justice Stevens in his dissent to McDonald making this statement. When he quotes back to Heller you have to be cautious because he will often cite back to his own dissent.

In conclusion, this judge decided to justify his acceptance of “historical record” of firearms regulations because the loosing side in McDonald thought, incorrectly, that there were such historical regulations.

On the fun front, a Henry Golden Boy in .22 followed me home. She is very sweet. I need to do a bit more hole punching to get it fully zeroed, that’s just fun.

I hope you all have a great weekend.

Did any of you listen to the Mean Mary music from Tuesday? Should I be looking for different types of music for you’ll?

Spread the love

By awa

5 thoughts on “Friday Feedback”
  1. those Henrys are flat out fun to shoot. I have a couple H0001 models in .22 and .22 mag. I didn’t get the golden boy because I didn’t want something so nice I’d be afraid to use it. My Uncle got the American Beauty (I think thats what they called it) It is engraved and etched and gold filled I was almost afraid to touch it she was that pretty . My luck I’d be the one to scratch it somehow . I got the plain Jane ones less to worry about LOL.

  2. Today more than ever, words have a ……meaning, and that said ‘meaning’ is not always traditional nor natural. Regarding your recent acquisition, you said, “On the fun front, a Henry Golden Boy in .22 followed me home. She is very sweet. I need to do a bit more hole punching to get it fully zeroed, that’s just fun,” which caused pause, followed by a ‘Hhmm’ during my morning coffee.
    As a Celtic orientated American, I did enjoy Mean Marry.
    And perhaps if you have some spare time, you could perhaps give Miguel some pointers as to how you got a firearm to follow you home, he needs help with an Italian Delight.
    And as always, great work providing the necessary information on court cases. It saves me time and money, not to mention the peace in knowing why so many second amendment laws are illogical, resulting in bad law.

  3. RE: Hawaii is going to be the Mecca of suing gun makers

    Sounds to me like Hawaii is saying something to the extent of :

    “Since we got our direct infringement’s pee-pee indirectly slapped by SCOTUS in other rulings, we’ll just make it so legally dangerous for manufacturers that they will decide for themselves not to sell/ship to our little slice of island despotry. We the State aren’t infringing…it’s the it’s the Suppliers that have decided of their own accord (cough) not to sell/ship to you.”

  4. So when that judge said “the Court noted” he was lying through his teeth. After all, “the Court” means the majority opinion; a dissent does not speak for the Court. I guess this proves Mencken’s observations that judges, being lawyers, are “professionally trained in finding plausible excuses for dishonest and dishonorable acts.”

Comments are closed.