A District Court rules that it may be a constitutionally protected right. Go read the circumstances. It’s truly appalling.
6 thoughts on “A Win on Possession of Firearms Outside of Home”
Comments are closed.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
A District Court rules that it may be a constitutionally protected right. Go read the circumstances. It’s truly appalling.
Comments are closed.
So the cops were wrong even if he had a gun, which he didn’t.
That is an appalling story, but doesn’t worse happen every day and we never hear about it?
Another line in the sand erased! Thank G-d for the 3% Glad that they put the fear of retribution into that damn court eh?
Damn shame that it we needed the 3% to get that decision.
!97!
nosmo: get the signature right. It’s this:
XCVII
Uh, just WHAT did the .000097% have to do with this case?
Wasn’t it Sebastian just yesterday bemoaning the Hain case?
Too bad this supporting statement is in a footnote and is dicta. Eventually a better case will come along, i.e. one where the person is actually open carrying and doing so lawfully which will hopefully settle the matter of us in a more positive light.
“Too bad this supporting statement is in a footnote and is dicta.”
It’s also in a District Court. It’s not binding on any other court, and – even if it wasn’t dicta – not even truly binding on the court it came from.