View Single Post
  #1615  
Old 08-27-2021, 3:52 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,093
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
“If the Supreme Court … meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.” - Williams v. Maryland

Until SCOTUS rules otherwise, "most notably in the home" in the language of law means "exclusively in the home" in plain English.

Don't argue with me, take it up with your local (highly trained and super intelligent past mere mortals) lawyer and ask them why the language of the law often has the opposite meaning in plain English. They're the ones most proud of this disconnect, not me.
It is not the lawyers, it is the judges who disagree with a Supreme Court decision saying, "I think you got it wrong, and I'm not going there unless you expressly order me to go there. I will use any and all devices to ignore the intent of the opinion by limiting it to its facts." A classic example is that Ninth Circuit case about the SF "carry or lock it up" ordinance that went as close as it could to the express line drawn by Heller without crossing it, because the Ninth doesn't think that mere plebs should possess guns. The Ninth did it again in Peruta and again in Young v. Hawaii. Their excuse is, in essence, the express holdings in Heller and McDonald apply only to possession of workable firearms in the home, and no matter how broad Scalia's reasoning was, we will limit all gun rights to in the home until ordered otherwise. Since they'd gotten away with it twice, in Young they slapped Scalia's ghost in the face and threw down the gauntlet.
Reply With Quote