Petition for Cert.

As noted, Heller stated that the textual analysis focuses on the normal and ordinary meaning of the words in the constitutional text. Heller, 554 U.S. at 576. The plain and ordinary meaning of “arm” obviously includes all firearms. This is what Heller said. Id. at 581 (citing with approval a source that said that all firearms constituted arms.). Thus, it follows that the firearms banned by the State are arms within the meaning of the text.
Not so fast, says the Seventh Circuit. The word “arms” in the text includes some firearms but not others. And how does one discern the difference? The ordinary meaning of the text is no help according to the panel majority because the word “arms” in the Second Amendment has an idiomatic meaning that in the context of firearms includes only “firearms that are not too ‘militaristic.’” App. 42.
Of course, the panel seems to have drawn this line between firearms covered by the text and those that are not in an effort to cabin Heller as much as possible to its specific facts. But as then-Judge Kavanaugh wrote in Heller v. D.C. (“Heller II”), 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a line based on a desire to restrict Heller is “not a sensible or principled constitutional line for a lower court to draw.” Id. at 1286 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). Justice Kavanaugh was correct, and the panel majority’s approach to the text cannot be reconciled with Heller’s “plain and ordinary meaning” mandate.

There is much more. The gist is that the plaintiffs (good guys) are calling out the Seventh Circuit and the District court for refusing to follow Supreme Court instructions, as they are required, as inferior courts.

Spread the love

By awa

3 thoughts on “Teaser: Petition for Cert”
  1. Of course the lower courts are ignoring Heller and Bruen or reinterpreting themas they see fit to serve their agenda. Why wouldn’t they. There is NO penalty for their willful abusive misconduct. And as long as that is the
    reality we live in, these inferior courts will continue to do as they pleased.

  2. Now really make their heads explode by pointing out that ‘arms’ means all armament and armor. All. Like brass knuckles, gravity and switchblade knives, spears, swords, all guns (from ancient gonnes up to not-conceived-yet projectile weapons) and laser weapons and phase plasma rifles, light sabers (okay, plasma torches used as weapons,) and such and so forth.

    So if I want to wear that Level IV enhanced suit of Maximilian plate while carrying a .22LR Gatling gun, that’s protected under the 2nd Amendment. Any restrictions against me wearing and carrying whatever the heck I want is a violation of said 2nd Amendment.

    All gun and arms/armor control laws are patently in violation of said 2nd Amendment.

    1. I’m surprised more people in the general population haven’t asked their Sens. and Reps. about their views on laser weaponry and the 2A. We often hear about D stupidity regarding technology and the BoR (and their endless assault on AR-15’s and other weaponry based on 20th-century technology), but how often do we see explicitly positive stuff from the R’s on the matter?

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.