“Had Plaintiffs wished to have their allegations judged under Heller or McDonald, they could have raised a claim under the Second Amendment,” the opinion noted. “But they chose to challenge HB 1224 solely on state constitutional grounds. [More]The graphic is a bit off because the argument was limited to the state constitution. Even if it had been 2A-centered, my read is that the robed apparatchiks would have found other reasons to "justify" their subversion.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep it on topic. Submit tips on different topics via left sidebar Contact Form.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.