This is all I could find. According to this site, It was remanded.....
..... so I assume it went back down to the lower court on remand. Not much help, I know ... :cool:
I only hope no news is good news .... ;)
When I read the title, I read it as .... "New Member Restrictions Removed", So I didn't quite get the above, since if the title was right, he should have access to the Water Cooler. Then the fog lifted, :lol2: I say this calls for a vote .... due to the circumstances, should the OP be...
Establish/pass reciprocity. One which has an Educational Funding component to it for Law Enforcement. It will establish the curriculum to effectively educate Law Enforcement on the intricacies of the new law. In Addition, the fund will establish a testing website for LE to access.
First...
File another suit or amend this one. Add the 5 million members of the NRA as individual plaintiffs. Wouldn't that will give you a nice chunk of public, for public safety purposes ? ...... :D
Let's not forget that the Plaintiffs attorney didn't object to the intervention either. Instead they welcomed it. I think THAT fact in and of itself, would be cause to doubt that line of attack on the decision, procedurally, anyway.
Could they overturn the enbanc ruling and reinstate the original 3 judge panel opinion from the 9th in a per curiam and say see Heller? :shrug:
Not sure how that works ....
I'll see your required $500.00, one week training requirement for First Responders to carry in South Carolina, ......
....... and raise you to Texas, where no additional training is required (other than having a CHL), acknowledging an inheirant right of self defence of first responders ...
Why not justify the legislation under both? That would cover two bases in the event of the inevitable legal challenge. One may get tossed by the courts, but uphold the law under the other clause. No?
Well, to start off with, it's good bet that the sponsoring Senators live in some of them ...
So ... these at least, so far .... :innocent0
West V.
Colorado
Arkansas
North Dakota
Here is part 4 of the The Arbalest Quarrel's Post on the Kolbey Case, and is well worth the read, IMO. Links to the previous 3 posts are there as well for those who are interested.
THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND IGNORES U.S. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, OPENLY AND BLATANTLY DEFYING HELLER.
I agree, completely. There must be a balance here. From my understanding of history, SCOTUS went from having to take all cases (like CCA's), to being able to pick and choose what cases they take due to their overwhelming workload at the time (didn't Congress approve this change???). It would...
It's a fake Bill and not really Shall Issue. Not that it will pass, but ........They can still Deny based on the finding of "Good Moral Charactor" (or lack there-of).
Bad credit?
Multiple Parking tickets?
One of Trumps Deplorables?
FORGET IT !
Per this article, 8 more States joined in :party29::
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-politics/2017/02/17/gov-greg-abbott-wants-supreme-court-block-california-gun-limits