View Single Post
Old 12-04-2012, 10:36 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
He would not had a problem in re NY law if he had.
That doesn't necessarily follow.

Let me also remind everyone that Osterweil in district court was pro se litigation. Paul Clement may have represented at appeals, but district court was done by Osterweil.
Now that is something I did not know.

And it means that the real litmus test here is going to be how the 2nd Circuit rules on it.

I predict they will rule against Osterweil, in an attempt to narrow the scope of the 2nd Amendment as much as possible.
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.