"Court agrees to hear CRITICAL gun case."
Explain to me how this is critical.
I've already gone over it. There is an unlikely event that the court might make an expansive ruling. "You may move your gun around NYC to places other than the 7 gun ranges on the list..." is the expected good ruling. For expansive the court has to go... "And, in fact, you can carry it around just about anywhere, loaded, in your holster, all across the country. That's what 'bear' means." And I don't see, from here, how it get's there with that case.
I think it's just wishcasting to even half expect this rosier outcome. "Don't expect miracles," says Gun-Blog Eeyore, and this time I share his pessimism as realistic and not just Negative Waves. Most likely, they don't even touch scrutiny. And then, if this is the scrutiny case, I think it's a tossup. 50/50. I hope for strict scrutiny, but can't connect the dots to get there, now.
So, why this headline, Fox? And NSSF for that matter. Critical? Illogical. Please explain.
Rhode v. Bonta (then get out of the way)
-
Moros reposted this with the comment, “This will probably play at my
disbarment hearings but oh well. Truth hurts.”
5 hours ago
1 comment:
I don't think that the court is going to just say, the 2nd amendment is the untouchable that we all wish. But I am hoping that they might use this chance to address the Heller ruling, and the McDonald one, and say that the cities and other jurisdictions have overstepped their bounds and that they must pay attention to the rulings of the court.
I know, it is a lot to wish for, but it might depend on how the opinion is written and who writes it, and also of course, if they even rule in favor of the 2nd amendment. This is not ever a given.
Post a Comment