View Single Post
  #1640  
Old 10-04-2021, 6:24 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Perhaps because it was straight up a CCW case as presented by Petitioner and Respondent alike?

Unlike Bruen which was a "Right to Carry" case as presented by Petitioner, called a CCW case by Respondent, and reworded likewise when taken up on cert by SCOTUS?

Distinctions are important.

=8-|
"Right to Carry" would also include CCW as a basic premise until specifically excluded by the court being asked to hear the matter. At this point SCOTUS has not decided this particular issue. They've refused to hear it but that doesn't mean it's not included in "Right to Carry."

However, rewording a "Right to Carry" case as a CCW case then denying Cert to following CCW cases instead of holding them would indicate... what?
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote