I watch Mark Smith’s Four Boxes Diner YouTube channel because he explains legal concepts clearly. He often addresses issues that I’m concerned with understanding.
There are more than a few things I’ve picked up from him, as far as language goes.
One of those is “inferior court”. Article III of the US Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as … When I am speaking of an inferior court, it means that it has a superior court which tells it how to act.
Mark Smith makes this point over and over. I got it from him.
The concept of inferior court makes it very clear that all inferior courts should be taking their marching orders from the Supreme Court.
When a court does not follow the clear instructions of the Supreme court, I label it a rogue court, or a rogue judge.
One of the things I’ve learned, while reading 100s, if not 1000s, of court filings, is that rogue judges spend more time on what wasn’t said in Supreme Court opinions than they do on what was said.
These rogue courts will often latch onto a tiny part of an opinion and fixate on that part. Nothing else matters outside that small safety net of infringement.
They will quote Heller that “no right is absolute” as if that somehow makes this infringement that exception. Every modern regulation requires that nuanced approach.
My son is on the spectrum. We used to tell him, “Stop hunting zebras”. Yes, those hoof prints might be zebra prints, but we aren’t in that part of Africa, we aren’t near a zoo that has misplaced a zebra, it is much more likely that it is a horse.
The Supreme Court says, “When you are looking at a horse, this is how you ‘do it’. There is a small chance it is a zebra, in which case you “do it” this alternative way.” They then spend 99% of their instructions on dealing with horses.
Then an inferior court starts looking for zebras, doesn’t find a zebra, but it could be a zebra, the Supreme Court did mention a zebra in one sentence of one paragraph of a 70-page opinion, so we’ll assume this is a zebra, just like the Supreme Court said.
The other common argument used is the “they didn’t say anything about it, so it must be constitutional”. Heller went through every word of the Second Amendment and explained what each phrase meant. They didn’t bother with “infringe” because that’s straightforward.
All that is needed is to look at Samuel Johnson’s dictionary and you would know.
Too many inferior court judges instead throw up their hands and say, “We don’t know what it means, so it must mean the modern regulation is constitutional.”
The part about all of this that drives me bonkers is that Heller and Bruen clearly state that if the modern regulations touches fingers with the Second Amendment, the regulation is presumptively unconstitutional. To quote Mr. Smith, “When in doubt, throw it out.”
Finally, the actual lying to The People’s face. To look at a modern regulation, to absolutely know it is a gun control law, and then claim it doesn’t touch fingers with the Second Amendment.
Just make the assumption and let the Constitution work as intended. Instead, they are so afraid of following the plain text of the Constitution, as they know it will be the downfall of much of their statist regulatory dream.