2A lawsuit cases for the lawyers/judges here

[Racer X]

With all the decisions coming out where both the defendants(government) and judges refer to things that don't exist like the military use test, or my least favorite where they tack on "for self defense" (NOT what Heller actually said), what can plaintiffs do?

For example in a brief, or during oral arguments, can't they say since Heller said "(comma) LIKE self defense" but NOT limited to only self defense. Or pointing out that there is no such thing as a SCOTUS ruling limiting for or against military only use.

Is it poor form to pre emptivly warn them what Heller ACTUALLY says, or repudiating any thing remotely like a military use test as being non existent? Or reminding them that according to federal law that a suppressor is a "firearm"?

 

[Erich]

I'm a lawyer who worked in appellate law for a couple of decades.

Honestly, I'm not really sure I understand where your question is coming from so I may not be answering in a way that's helpful. But you can be sure lawyers raise such arguments and explain the law to the courts wherever appropriate.