dougwg
Regular Member
imported post
Yeah I know.... I can wish can't I?
Aren't you supposed to be PM'ing me?
Yeah I know.... I can wish can't I?
Aren't you supposed to be PM'ing me?
dougwg wrote:
Michigander wrote:Oh please let it mean something here in this gun owning $hithole that is my home state.snip...Does this ruling set a nation wide standard, or only for that district?
The decision is only binding to that district of the Federal Appeals Court.
However, it does serve as guidance to other courts, it's just not binding.
wow that i.s huge. What happens in NM doest necesarily impact us in MI though
Not so. It is binding on all states and possessions of the Unites States, it just needs to be authenticated. This can be seen in USC title 28 Sec. 1738. You can read it here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001738----000-.htmldougwg wrote:
Michigander wrote:Oh please let it mean something here in this gun owning $hithole that is my home state.snip...Does this ruling set a nation wide standard, or only for that district?
The decision is only binding to that district of the Federal Appeals Court.
However, it does serve as guidance to other courts, it's just not binding.
zigziggityzoo wrote:Not so. It is binding on all states and possessions of the Unites States, it just needs to be authenticated. This can be seen in USC title 28 Sec. 1738. look it updougwg wrote:
Michigander wrote:Oh please let it mean something here in this gun owning $hithole that is my home state.snip...Does this ruling set a nation wide standard, or only for that district?
The decision is only binding to that district of the Federal Appeals Court.
However, it does serve as guidance to other courts, it's just not binding.