d33rhunt3r
Pro Pizza Eater
I am not saying I agree with the decisions obviously, but does it seem to anyone else like the state/defense had a substantial amount of evidence to support their opinions more so than the plaintiffs? I'm still reading now, 40ish pages so far, but the plaintiffs appeared to only have a couple arguments to support their side.
And yes, their arguments were supported by common sense, but since common sense doesn't really win the day anymore, it seems like a lot more supporting evidence would have done better than the 2A violation and "large-cap mags for home defense".
And yes, their arguments were supported by common sense, but since common sense doesn't really win the day anymore, it seems like a lot more supporting evidence would have done better than the 2A violation and "large-cap mags for home defense".