View Single Post
  #1614  
Old 08-26-2021, 3:40 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,425
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Don't argue with me, take it up with Scalia (dead)...or SCOTUS if you think you can make it that far.
“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.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 08-26-2021 at 3:44 PM..
Reply With Quote