so.....were still going to assault the fish tomorrow night in celebration though.right?
I just got off the phone with one of our attorneys. He is reviewing the decision now and is going to give me his opinion of how broad or limited the decision is.
It appears to me (as it does to Doug) its a pretty broad decision when it comes to conceal carry of a weapon. Meaning there were not a lot of intricacies of this case which other cases would have to mirror to fall under the same conclusion.
Our attorney DID share with me that EVEN in Clark County, there are other circuit court judges who could hypothetically tomorrow, come to a different conclusion in an identical case. (but that is unlikely)
So this is GOOD news, its another hole in the wall of oppression, but the wall isn't knocked over just yet.
If it is appealed and upheld, the implications would be FAR broader border to border.
Unfortunately, there are still no GUARANTEES that in Clark County you can CC with impunity. (if you get the same judge, and weren't committing a crime while CC'ing you probably have nothing to worry about)
I'll share more of his analysis as he finished reviewing the decision.
None of us here are practicing attorney's, right? I think we need to wait a little bit to see what exactly this judges decision means to the status 0f 941.23.
In hamden, 941.23 was found unconstitutional in that case, yet the law still remains and is enforced. I have a feeling this is all that will happen in the latest case too. I hope not, but this is what I got out of reading a few other challenges to 941.23
I would like to know what impact this judges decision in this case has or will have for the rest of the state. And I think we should wait for a professional in law to make that determination so we do not get ourselves in trouble from a misunderstanding.
In Hamdan it was found unconstitutional "as applied" to Hamdan
In this case the statute was found unconstitutional "on it's face".
IANAL, but I believe this is the difference maker meaning that the whole statute is unconstitutional to everybody, especially reading the justices remarks about equal protection and my favorite tidbit I quoted above.
Also, notice the "strict scrutiny" language.
Thanks! I hadn't thought of them for a long time. firstname.lastname@example.org member since 1998
Did he make anything of the Privileges or Immunities language/Clarence Thomas quotes in the decision?
Thanks, that would make sense, if it was in fact an incorrect reference. If that's the case I don't need to stay confused. :lol:YES, he specifically brought that up. To be honest though, I didn't quite grasp exactly what he meant with his comments about it. Something about it was an incorrect reference but end result same thing.. i cant recall.