|
I know what he was refering to, and he said "last fall the 9th Circuit reinstated a wrongful death action...." and further suggested that further action occurred last week. If he was refering to Ileto--which is what he said he was referring to--the decisions he is refering to occurred eight years ago. I just wanted to make that clear. Further, the potential impact to which she referred was eliminated by a federal law that immunized gun manufacturers, thus ending a spate of cases that sought to hold manufacturers liable for deaths caused by guns they manufactured--which of course would have been a sure fire way to put them all out of business. Mnufacturers are still liable for injuries resulting from defective guns.
OSacnlain is a good judicial conservative. He is good for our side. I don't know anything about Thomas. The real issue is, suddenly, Kachalsky, which although supposedly applying heightened scrutiny to CCW laws, found that public safety can trump the ability of the average citizen to bear arms in public, absent a showing of "good cause," the very issue these cases raise. Hopefully this court will not be fooled by the slight of hand the 2d engaged in by ignoring the fact that open carry--as it is now in California--is banned, and therefore only police, criminals, and special people designated in the essentially unappealable discretion of a public official are permitted to carry outside the home. IThat coourt concluded, in essence, that as long as there is some way--no matter how unobtainable--to gain a CCW, the ban of carrying in any other manner passes judicial scrutiny as not unduly infringing on the right. The semantic repurcutions of this conclusion--as .melifluously as the court's opinion states them--are incomprehensible. By focusing on the tree (CCW and proper cause) the court ignored the forest (no way to lawfully carry arms in self defense.) I can't see O'Scannlain going that route, but it will be argued
|