svaz
June 19, 2009, 10:42 AM
Old news, I know, but that this article was written, and how it was written, in the NYT is, to me, simply astounding. E.g.:
The differing opinions mean that the whole issue of city and state gun laws will probably head back to the Supreme Court for clarification, leading many legal experts to predict a further expansion of gun rights. (emphasis is mine).
I would have expected the NYT to say something like "... leading many legal experts to predict an explosion of lawsuits to clear the way for easy access to assault weapons" or something to that effect.
Gun Rulings Open Way to Supreme Court Review (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17guns.html?_r=1)
The differing opinions mean that the whole issue of city and state gun laws will probably head back to the Supreme Court for clarification, leading many legal experts to predict a further expansion of gun rights. (emphasis is mine).
I would have expected the NYT to say something like "... leading many legal experts to predict an explosion of lawsuits to clear the way for easy access to assault weapons" or something to that effect.
Gun Rulings Open Way to Supreme Court Review (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17guns.html?_r=1)