Thanks for the summary. It's nice when someone can unravel the legalese.
I'd be fine if the judge said that the HQL in it's present form was illegal, but could be used as a Wear and Carry permit since it's a vetting of dangerous or illegal citizens.
How's that for a dream?
I'd be fine if the judge said that the HQL in it's present form was illegal, but could be used as a Wear and Carry permit since it's a vetting of dangerous or illegal citizens.
How's that for a dream?
You know, in all honesty, if they struck the 1 shot requirement and made the HQL purely academic, I would consider that a win.
That issue is not even before the court.
Why not?
We challenged the existing law. The court can strike it down if we win. It is not the province of the court to rewrite that law and create a new one.
Well it should be. This could be the beginning of a beautiful thing.
Bite your tongue. Legislating from the bench is a prescription for disaster or dictators.
Bite your tongue. Legislating from the bench is a prescription for disaster or dictators.
[YT]Cp6gQzRjWwo[/YT]
I'm not pessimistic, but I am getting older, day by day, while the courts progress year by year. One can hope that the two trendlines will cross before my big dirt nap.
Bite your tongue. Legislating from the bench is a prescription for disaster or dictators.
Well it should be. This could be the beginning of a beautiful thing.
Well it should be. This could be the beginning of a beautiful thing.