imported post
joeroket wrote:
Ajetpilot wrote:
Nope, just finished it for the second time. Seemed pretty factual to me. I didn't see any pot shots.
Same here.
"Because Warden also brought the park ban’s legality into question under the state constitution, Pechman allowed herself to rule on the ban’s constitutionality under Article 1, Section 24. This is an area where some attorneys have privately suggested she should never have been tempted to go, but that the Warden lawsuit opened that door. She slammed it shut, thus giving Seattle a new ground on which to base its appeal of the SAF/NRA case."
False; a federal district judge ruling on state law has no precedential value of any kind on state courts.
"Warden has appealed Pechman’s ruling. His case may not move beyond that notice of appeal before the Second Amendment ruling on the Chicago gun ban case is decided by SCOTUS. At that point, it is likely his complaint becomes moot."
False; my complaint cannot be rendered moot - remember, I suffered actual harm.
"Warden was funding this out of his own pocket, and when he appealed to a gun rights forum last month for financial support, he got a rather chilly reception from several people. That is an irony in its own right, since on the same forum, for Open Carry activists, more than a few of them originally regarded Warden as the guy with the stronger case."
Gratuitously smug; a chilly reception from five people who would rather throw eggs from the sideline than risk anything themselves is to be expected.
"A week before Pechman issued her ruling Warden actually visited the SAF office and met privately with SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. Perhaps it is a shame that meeting didn’t happen last fall, before Warden launched his federal lawsuit. There might have been a different outcome, or at least one that limited Pechman’s opinion to federal constitutional issues, where it belonged."
Alan invited me to visit to thank me for my help and cooperation in Chan! "where it belonged" is not factual reporting, either.
