[cuchulainn]

from the Jefferson City News Tribune

http://newstribune.com/stories/102403/sta_1024030005.asp

[bogie]

Thing is, it must really irk the judge to know that whatever he does, it's gonna go to the supreme court anyway.

[clipse]

"The Constitution is written in simple language, but that doesn't mean the decision is simple,"


That quote bothers me. If the language is simple then he understands what is meant by it. Should the decision be that the constitution plainly says what it does and should be interpretted as such? Boy that looks more complicated typed out than it did in my head.:D But, am I wrong?



clipse

[RocketMan]

"The Constitution is written in simple language, but that doesn't mean the decision is simple,"

It's hard work reading into it what isn't there.

[erikm]

It's interesting that the judge is openly calling the plaintiffs' numbers "guesswork". How far is it from that to saying they're lieing through their teeth or doing 'junk science'?

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

[chrisinmo]

Clipse,

Actually the judges opinion on the temporary injuction was that the constitution language clearly prohibits Concealed carry. I think taking some extra time to examine case law is a good sign. Multiple cases of the legislature passing laws whoch control concealed carry by granting to some and denying to others have been cited by the pro gun side. If the judge is taking time to examine case law it may be a good sign for us Pro CCW guys. Had he just issued a decision based on his passed opinions he could have simply granted a permanent injunction. I read an interesting thing about a week ago that said that to grant a temporary injunctin he only had to rule that they have a case, but to make it permanent he has to rule that their case is legally correct. Seems there is a bigger burdon of proof on this case. I wonder how their "people have hte right to ne be around otehr people with concealed guns" Argument is holding up? LMAO I'd loce to see them try and cite case law supposring that right. These days it seems people dont know the difference between what a person WANTS and what a persond RIGHTS are.

[John Ross]

From my website http://www.john-ross.net/battle.htm

[outdoorman63]

thanks john for the wonderful well written post..i really enjoyed reading it and all the info was great...keep up the fight..

[fmjcafe]

Thanks for filling us in John. My heart has been a bit heavy over all this and your post has lifted my spirits.

[Bill Hook]

The anti crowd sound despicably trashy and hateful. That old bag had her hair dyed to match her politics.

[Standing Wolf]

The Constitution is written in simple language, but that doesn't mean the decision is simple...

You can always count on leftist extremists for hypercomplexificationalizationism—and bad law, too.

[clange]

Thanks for filling us in John. My heart has been a bit heavy over all this and your post had lifted my spirits.
Same here.

[S_O_Laban]

Great post John! Keep us informed, I wish I could have attended that hearing.

[Dashunde]

Yep, thanks John, definitely a favorable impression, one that lifted my mood about it.

[mec]

Very good report. - Of course.
It took six years but I am now reading Unintended Consequences. The Amazon .com reviewer obviously hasn't read the book and is a tinkerbell- the fact is that Ross is a guifted novelist. The reviewer ( who obviously hadn't read the book) compared the work to the Turner Diaries. I haven't read that book but I have read Robert Roark and a comparison there wouldn't be amiss.

He is every bit as good as the best novelists of the past century. The book succeeds on several different levels and is totally credible, free of bombast and pontification and entertaining in a most wicked manner.

Future editions should have an index. In addition to being a most satisfying novel, it is also a cyclopedia of twentieth century firearms history and lore.

[Ford]

Here is a GREAT article that was written to "inform" one of the ST. Louis Post Dispatch reporters.

http://www.wmsa.net/CCW/031026_barnett.htm