- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,307
Yeah, this. I don't understand why plaintiffs didn't push much harder on the four transaction per hour rule. That said, the standards for a TRO are very stringent (I'm actually not totally clear whether this is a TRO or an injunction), and this is a ruling that I feel confident won't be overturned by the First Circus.
You have to figure the judge is playing the long game here. He doesn't want to issue an overbroad ruling and have it be completely overturned. This is not the end. It's the beginning of a long process. Especially if it's just a TRO, and an injunction is to follow, there is room for changing it.
There is no risk of an overbroad ruling when the states case is not grounded in one single aspect of law.
They couldn't even defend their own position, so how would a proper ruling (treat FFL and ranges like other essential businesses) be considered "overbroad"?
It's not like the judge would be giving the shops and ranges additional privileges above and beyond what other essential businesses currently enjoy.
He would just be leveling the playing field and arguably he is still narrowly constraining these entities given they are Constitutionally protected and other businesses are not.
I see this ruling as nothing but a big FU to gun owners.
The state must be f***ing high fiving each other. They knew they had shit and I bet they felt none of their demands would be met.
But what does this judge do? He gives them everything they want. Judicial arbitrage wins again.
Just pathetic.