In Dominic Bianchi v. Brian Frosh in the Fourth Circuit court oral arguments were held on 2022-12-06. I started listening to the oral arguments back in December but couldn’t make my way through them so was hoping for a transcript.
Today I’ve made my way part of it and got to the point where the state drew blood.
In Heller and Bruen they Supreme court said that firearms can be regulated if they are dangerous and unusual. In Caetano quoting Heller the court says But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.
Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 – Supreme Court 2016 P. 1031
The key here is commonly used for lawful purposes
. In the arguments throughout all of the cases we are following the state restates this as in common use for self-defense
. They then go on to define “for self-defense” to mean documented cases where an “assault weapon” was used and then attempt to narrow that even further to the trigger was pulled.
In the oral arguments the state is very consistent in using the phrase “in common use for self-defense” instead of “in common use for lawful purposes.” When the state starts the court doesn’t fall for it. But the state continues and then suddenly around the 30 minute mark the Court starts using “common use for self-defense” and you can hear it in the state’s voice as they have their “gotcha” moment. That moment when they got the court thinking of redefining “unusual”.
Oral arguments for Dominic Bianchi v. Brian Frosh