mab22

Washington Gun Law had some interesting takeaways from Wilford V Lopez. Lots of clarifications for thing like Rahimi, Bruen, historical analogs, etc. Plus he uses a 1st amendment analog, suppose someone wearing a head scarf is not allowed into a place because of head scarf prohibitions....

And let us not forget the contortionist Roberts can always find a way to **** us in the end...

💯 As Sun Tsu said, To know your enemy, you must become your enemy. Personally I really don't think of them as an enemy, in America you have the right to be a dumb @55, unless your annoying me with it then I care.

Except the commie hoard has unethical lawyers on its side.

That which government gives permission by legislation, government may taketh away permission via legislation. Wasn't parts of the gun control act supposed to provide protections for citizens from state action but then the states didn't like that so the "congress fixed it for them" and screwed the citizens? ...Thank you sir may I have another!

totally legit because some party members are butt hurt over not getting reelected and wont do squat, and seek revenge on the people who told them to retire.. (cough!! CORNYN).

I don't know if I feel any better knowing any of the justices know anything about gummies, or if it's their staff. It does make you realize how they come to some of the conclusions they do.

Was this the case where the person was an illegal alien?

I don't know about Y'all, but I suspect no one is coming to help.... Just my Spidey senses kicking in.

If I recall properly, the head gets elected and then the head gets to choose their board going forward.

I think it gets better if possession/purchasing for "In the home" is included and emphasized.

You know they did the same with PICA? LE, even prison guards and wardens were allowed to posses special scary rifles because they had "training" that the rest of the plebs/peasants can't access. Devore was trying to point that out, but Caulkins decided not to wait and press ahead and look where we are at. So there's that bit O' history...

I missed a few posts up where it has the X thing that shows petition denied In April. What the heck does SCOTUS want if they are not taking these cases up, the courts are ignoring everything they have already said….

Is this for the US Supreme Court or the appeals court in Maryland?