Figures will not lie, but Liars will figure…

Trust only half of what you see, and none of what you hear.

Dicta is a judge’s expression of opinion on something other than the exact issue involved in the determination of a case, not considered to be binding precedent and are regarded as of little authority, flavor if you will.

A person that would use their position as an elected employee legislator to read a portion of a sentence from the dicta of a Supreme Court case which does not does not include the term hold, find or order promoting that it is the “ruling” of said case is disingenuous at best and a liar at worst. Doing so is an attempt to hide facts and pursue an agenda, and truth is not involved. They are figuring a way to make a personal animus be the focus and not the facts or final judgement of the case.

One could, if they were attempting to be deceitful quote from the text of a case, mention the case name, the Justice that delivered the opinion and pluck a portion of a sentence out and read it to insinuate that the words convey the ruling.

For instance, if a Senator were attempting to sway other committee members in opposition to a vote about a restorative firearms issue, say removing a latter day infringement on the People’s right to bear long guns for lawful purposes, and they began by saying they were going to quote from Heller and begin by saying Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court (I know, the peanut gallery will submit that Scalia delivered that opinion, but pushing an agenda is the sought result, not the correct presentation of facts, the speaker meant to say Scalia but his phone lied to him, maybe… so hang with me here) and then this is quoted from the case, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

A different Senator could have prefaced their quote (one ostensibly in favor of Second Amendment rights rather than opposed to them) with all the same qualifications but have presented this instead, “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers…”

Neither are the holding of the Court in Heller, which simply finds in its stated quest, “We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.” Then, “We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.”

The judgement of the Court of Appeals found the infringement by D.C in denying the ability of a person to have an operable handgun ready for use in their home unconstitutional. End of line. All the other words on all the pages are “flavor”.

Be careful who you trust for bringing information to the table.