It isn't at all unusual to find cases that cite one set of decisions to prove that there is no right to concealed carry, and another set of decisions to prove that their is no right to open carry--with no awareness that the "no right to concealed carry" decisions often directly say that concealed carry can be prohibited only if open carry is allowed (or vice versa).Gee, judges making the precedent up to suit themselves, or possibly the politicians who got them their judgeship's in the first place. Who'd-a thunk it?
Puts me in mind of a Will Rogers quote: "We revere the hell out of judges. No matter how crooked."
No comments:
Post a Comment