Quote:
Originally Posted by Statkowski
Just my interpretation, but I believe GunLawyer001 is playing devil's advocate, pointing out the worse-case scenario. He's not playing the bad guy - he's just pointing out that in the strange world of jurisprudence black isn't always black, white isn't always white and the grey inbetween the two could actually be something else altogether.
|
It's instructive to note how many US Supreme Court cases are decided 5-4. That means that you could have 4 Supreme Court Justices tell you that you're right, and you'll still be "wrong", because the Court happened to rule against you.
Heller was a 5-4 case. Four of the Justices believe that "the People" doesn't mean "the People", but only when it's used in the 2nd Amendment. In the 1st, 4th, 9th, in the Preamble, it refers to us individuals, "the People".
The PA Preemption clause is about as long as the 2nd Amendment. Litigation over it won't be a slam-dunk for either side. My professional evaluation of the chances of beating the criminal statute (which is feasible), and the chances off striking down the park policy (much less so), has nothing at all to do with who I'm rooting for.
It's counterproductive to insist on political correctness and to whine about contrary views; that's how they sold Global Warming (oops, "Climate Change"). If you try to stifle dissent with ad hominem attacks, you end up with decisions based on nonsense.