In the HI case. Does it make sense to only issue gun carry rights to police that actively pursue people that may lead to a deadly confrontation with guns being involved?
How can that be better than issuing carry permits to people who do not pursue people, only citizens that are pursued by criminals will use their gun and only when left no other choice but grave bodily harm or death imminent?
Obviously I'm going down the wrong path, if they disarmed the police the argument would be a moot point and that's not what we are after.
SD = win
CA = could go either way.
HI = back to the drawing board. It reminded me of when I fought a speeding ticket in court. If I would of defined the "why" I was not guilty I would of had a chance. It seems the case is more about getting one person his permit and not about overturning the policy of may issue w/just cause. No disrespect intended toward Mr. Holcomb. I wasn't there.
"one test is worth a thousand opinions".