Hudson v. District of Columbia

This is the type of case we want the Supreme Court to slap down.

The district judge’s analysis is based on a twisted view of Heller as affirmed by Bruen.

In Heller, the Court said that weapons that are most useful in military service, or at least that’s how the district court quoted it.

Ok, a bit more context, but how did the district court interpret this?

Heller specifically contemplated that weapons most useful in military service fall outside of Second Amendment protection.

This is good wordsmithing. That word “contemplated” doesn’t say that weapons most useful to military services are outside or inside the protections of the Second Amendment. It just means they discussed it. Factually, this is the only place they mention “useful” to the military or in military service.

In other words, the court gave far too much weight to what was not said.

But why is this even a question?

It is because the inferior courts can’t stop messing things up. Of going rogue.

The question is if the plain text of the Second Amendment is implicated. The district court even agrees that it is.

The district court slaps down the state for claiming that magazines are not arms as defined for purposes of the Second Amendment.

Having equivalently answered the question “Is the plain text of the Second Amendment implicated?”, the district court then goes on to claim that is not the first part of Heller.

Instead, the district court argues that the plaintiffs (good guys) have to prove that they are in common use for lawful purposes of self-defense AND that they are not most useful for military service.

If the Supreme Court issues an opinion in Ocean State Tactical, then this is a done deal. Magazine bans are gone. This case will evaporate.

If the Supreme Court doesn’t issue an opinion in Ocean State Tactical, then we can hope they strike down Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban in Snope.

Regardless, I still get upset when I read the twisted arguments of these rogue inferior courts.