The Moment the State's Attorney Said the Quiet Part Out Loud in Court!

Añadido: 2026-05-26

[00:00:00]If I can illustrate with a hypothetical, because I think not all acts of acquiring ammunition would I think everyone would agree would not necessarily fall under the plain text of the Second Amendment. So, if you had a for example law that required or prohibited purchases of ammunition that acquired it as collectors or for us wanted to melt it down for the brass and the commodity.

[00:00:26]Um the ammunition is not for any Second Amendment purpose. I don't think that the Second Amendment's plain text would cover that act of acquiring ammunition.

[00:00:37]>> it to the language that the the conduct at issue is is self-defense, the right to uh keep and bear arms for self-defense.

[00:00:45]So, if a person is acquiring ammunition for a firearm for self-defense, then it should be implicated by the plain text of the Second Amendment.

[00:00:53]>> Right. So, the the hypothetical is just meant to illustrate that there are certain acts of acquisition that fall under the scope of the Second Amendment and some that don't. And so, the at least with respect to the plain text.

[00:01:05]>> um if a conduct falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment and there is no historical historical analog that rebuts the presumption of constitutionality.

[00:01:17]Um uh excuse me, I'm saying this wrong.

[00:01:20]If it falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment and there is no historical analog, you would agree that the regulation at issue is is unconstitutional, huh? Yes, Your Honor.

[00:01:29]>> Seemingly an admission by the state's attorney when they were talking about applying the two-step process of Bruen to this case. She kind of just came out and said if it gets to the historical analog part of it, it it the law itself is unconstitutional. Can you read into this a little bit? What what did she mean when she said that?

[00:01:48]>> Yeah, she was responding to a specific question from the a judge who was pressing on sort of the framework of Bruen in the abstract. And she they were sort of speaking in hyperbole about just to get to if there is a restriction on ammo of the kind that she would say there is then you do get to the historical piece, right? So they dispute that you even get past step one, but that was all under a hypothetical assumption. So she was by no means you know, conceding that if they get past step one and into step two that the state loses. Their position there is that because there have always not always, but but there is some historical support potentially for firearm background checks that that translates into you know, a historical basis for ammunition background checks and that's where our position is twofold like no ammo should not be treated the same and even if it were there's no historical background check on ammo and if there is there's no historical background check that involves these sorts of problems that the state has imposed on this system.