Replying to myself to continue thoughts and make comments on the submission
And then he does literally the same in Para 22, WRT magazines. "I don't like this term, and here's why; I'm going to use this other term." I understand the idea. I think it could probably even be done well.
Wait. Paragraph 26. he's quoting dicta from a dissent because it "almost certainly accurately states the law post
Bruen"? Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. There must be better foundational quotes than that one.
In the
very next paragraph he both misquotes and mis-cites Duncan, calling the G17 "the most popular handgun in America."
actual quote, per
Duncan v. Becerra, 366 F. Supp. 3d 1131 | Casetext Search + Citator
...sigh
Especially with all the typographical errors, it feels sloppy. You've got a national org throwing money at you to fight a case you allegedly care about. A case that has the potential to affect the fundamental rights of millions of people. How do you not do the following two things: run the content by a peer whose opinion you trust; run the copy by an editor? You have two other attorneys signed on; did
neither of them see this?