Well, we know how Kavanaugh feels about magazine bans.
https://reason.com/2018/07/09/judge-...cond-amendment
Well, we know how Kavanaugh feels about magazine bans.
https://reason.com/2018/07/09/judge-...cond-amendment
Te occidere possunt sed te edere non possunt nefas est
Sane person with a better sight picture
FDB
The most important thing to be learned from those who demand "Equality For All" is that all are not equal...
Gun Control - seeking a Hardware solution for a Software problem...
Yeah, beyond bad to shop the state jurisdiction on this issue. It comes down to simple math.
Since 1975, Colorado has had a democratic governor for all but 8 years. (44 years, 36 democrat, 8 republican). That's who has been appointing judges. So, assuming anyone is even on the bench for 44 years (HAH) you could estimate state court makeup is only around 18% conservative appointed.
In the same period, 20 out of 44 years have been under presidents of the democrat party; while 24 have been a republican. That means the majority of federal judges (across all courts) are actually appointed by conservatives.
Now, this is unbalanced a bit because the oldest appointments are almost entirely gone, so and so forth, and the newest appointments are almost entirely on the bench. Nevertheless, it doesn't take a genius to figure out there's never going to be a favorable ruling inside of CO, and if you're depending on SCOTUS, you have about a three percent chance of them hearing the case, and a ninty seven percent chance that they decline, which defers forever to the CO Supreme Court, f'ing us all.
Not really, his dissent discussed by Dave merely outlined how he thought magazine bans should be analysed. But his comments are more interesting now that we have a Federal district court in California outline that California could articulate no facts at all supporting a magazine capacity limit.
Sayonara