dChan
Anonymous ID: 267551 July 24, 2018, 6:15 p.m. No.2271701   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1845

lawfag here with replies to bread 2861 notable

WOW that went fast - just went out to mow my lawn - well it is a big yard....

 

>>2270495

>not nationwide yet?

no but many states already allow and lets hope this goes to SCOTUS and they affirm THEN nationwide!>>2270559

>Do you think this is sending a message that law and order is in fact back and the courts are no longer corrupt[able]?

I wouldnt call it a message it appears to be a fact and a trend in the right direction

winning>>2270597

>OR there are some liberal judges on the court who have been freed…

yes anon this is my take

Anonymous ID: 267551 July 24, 2018, 6:24 p.m. No.2271831   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2117

lawfag here

i do not agree with the follow up notable on the 9th circuit case for the following reasons

anon posted

Young1 pic shows they wanted to hide the subject of all firearms/weapons

disagree - all the court said is the issue was not raised at trial - appeals basic rule is NO new issues on appeal

 

anon posted

young2 shows they want to keep Peruta in place so they can add Heller case to it and make the argument that a person ONLY has the right to have a loaded firearm IN THEIR HOME or BUSINESS

 

again disagree - the distinction is OPEN vs CONCEALED not home or public

 

anon posted

 

young3 shows how Heller did not address a broader scope of the 2nd A and this Young case would address and put to rest all issues of our right to bear arms

 

again disagree - this addresses the STANDARD of review (level of scrutiny) to be applied and the court here applied the LOWEST standard the govt could prevail upon and ruled against the govt - ie not even a "rational basis" for the law

 

dont know why anon went to such a (misguided) effort to make negative points that were incorrect