Christopher Boldt, an attorney for the city of Dover, said Bleiler's right to bear arms was not infringed when he lost his concealed-carry license, since it did not affect his ability to carry a gun in plain view. He also said that the Legislature has the authority to require permits for concealed weapons.Sure it is, Chris. Keeping and bearing "shall not be infringed." Seems pretty clear to anyone who's not a subversive liar. There are no restrictions on how you do it--no morally legitimate ones, anyway.
"The right to a concealed handgun is not a fundamental right," Boldt told the justices.
But now, thanks to this guy Bleiler reportedly acting like an ass, we'll probably get to see yet another inroad in denying "permitted" carrying codified and chiseled into stare decisis stone.
3 comments:
Just a quick question - how can you tell the difference between obiter dicta and stare decisis in a court ruling? I know that the last two or three paragraphs of a "Reason for Judgement" contain the meat of the decision, but there is usually a lot of other stuff supporting those reasons, most often based on previous court decisions.
How do you separate the wheat from the chaff?
Is there any "wheat" in most court rulings, or is it all "chaff"?
If Mr. Boldt was disbarred, that wouldn't infringe on his right to be involved with the law, since he could still attend trials and even serve on juries, right?
Though being able to practice law is certainly less important than being able to defend one's life.
Post a Comment