It is an example of eisegesis applied to the US Constitution. It is a biased interpretation of the words of the 2nd Amendment, based on faulty logic and a desire to make firearms ownership universal.
However, the words are generally used to describe two very different approaches to hermeneutics, the general term that describes Bible interpretation.
Often, amateur Bible "experts" switch back and forth between the two methods, depending on which one suits their immediate needs.
For example, attempting to apply current knowledge of cosmology to the Genesis creation story to somehow align the ancient words with modern information is eisegesis in action. It's an attempt to bend the actual words of an ancient mythological explanation to fit actual information. In reality, the story is what it is - an attempt to answer unanswerable questions of the long past, using language that made sense to the people who heard it. Trying to make that old myth fit in with modern discoveries requires the use of false logic - sophistry.
However, your priest example is not quite on point. It all depends on the denomination of the minister. The Catholic Church historically has interpreted scripture through exegisis. Other denominations may weave various amounts of eisegesis into their interpretations. There's a wide range of methods.
= new reply since forum marked as read