He must have prepared for logical/topical questions and not farcicle ones.That did not go well. It almost seemed like the lawyer for MSI wasn't prepared for the kinds of questions that would likely be asked.
This.He must have prepared for logical/topical questions and not farcicle ones.
That would have backfired - the end result of that would be that we'd need an HQL for stripped lowers too.The lawyer should have thrown out the the stripped lower argument. Why can we buy a stripped lower with a 77r and 7 days, but we need the extra paperwork and extra weeks and fees if its a handgun.
According to some anti-gunowner law professors, (paraphrasing their law review article, which I am going back to dig up again):The 4CA judges just do not get it ...
That is the only issue. The rest are distractions. The burden of proof resides with the State and they failed.I'm not a legal guru, but if there is no historical analog and zero text supporting a licensing scheme, this is unconstitutional. These judges are ridiculous.
ooohhh.... I dunno.... it can be occasionally useful...The ending seemed bad. He got run over.
And F that female judge that snapped her fingers at him saying “I’m over here”.
That is so condescending and unprofessional to snap your fingers at someone that way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"These are not the droids you are looking for"According to some anti-gunowner law professors, (paraphrasing their law review article, which I am going back to dig up again):
'Contrary to gun nut claims, our research of court decisions shows that the 4th Cir is actually one of the most pro-gunowner courts of appeals, with no evidence of 'massive resistance' to Heller . . .'
According to some anti-gunowner law professors, (paraphrasing their law review article, which I am going back to dig up again):
'Contrary to gun nut claims, our research of court decisions shows that the 4th Cir is actually one of the most pro-gunowner courts of appeals, with no evidence of 'massive resistance' to Heller . . .'
"Our research was undertaken without recourse to fact, based entirely upon the outcome we desired; as such, it successfully underscored our feelings on the matter. And don't forget, we are Constitutional Law professors!"According to some anti-gunowner law professors, (paraphrasing their law review article, which I am going back to dig up again):
'Contrary to gun nut claims, our research of court decisions shows that the 4th Cir is actually one of the most pro-gunowner courts of appeals, with no evidence of 'massive resistance' to Heller . . .'
Any new news on the HQL front?
Asking for a friend.
I remember buying a pistol as easily as buying a pair of shoes (not in MD).How does purchasing or selling a handgun prior to any of the current licensing schemes play into the case?
A person used to be able to do that sort of thing before onerous restrictions were legislated into the mix, prior to what the states government is arguing now.
Nope. Ask again in April '25.Over a month later, has it been a long time yet?