.Originally Posted by color of law:
And what case did BB62 file? Oh, that's right BB62 didn't file any suit, the St. Louis zoo did.
Lets keep the facts straight
I'm not the guy to play that game with.Isn't BB62 a party in the suit? I thought so ... I could be wrong
Money talks when it comes to the Law - go get'em BB62. Protect MO Law and 2A rights. I guess the NRA and other 'gun rights' groups are AWOL.What is all this debate about????? BB62 would appreciate help in defending against a government agency that is attempting to violate one of our inalienable rights.
The outcome effects all of us. So, either help of get out of the way.
Thank you very kindly, Matt.Money talks when it comes to the Law - go get'em BB62. Protect MO Law and 2A rights. I guess the NRA and other 'gun rights' groups are AWOL.
:lol:Good golly. BB62 thought he was hiring an attorney, not starting a long term relationship. The wheels on the bus may go round and round but these wheels of justice just sort of rock back and forth and don't go anywhere. *sigh*
That concurring opinion is scary though. According to the judge's warped logic, he cannot legally open carry anyway despite agreeing that the injunction was issued improperly.BB62, thanks for providing an update to those who shun FB type social media.
HEARTY congrats on the court decision, well done!