View Single Post
Old August 15, 2011, 08:17 AM   #4
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,524
Isn't there ample case history that even a tent sight (sic) is a domicile for the purposes of the 2A?
If there were, then why weren't they listed in the Baker complaint?

There might very well be such cases. The litigation process in Baker never came close to the stage of point - counter point, before the parties stipulated to the injunction. So we mere laymen don't have a working timeline to refer to.

What we do have, thanks to Baker, is that "home" and "residence" were used interchangeably within those documents. We have the successful argument that the right to be armed in a residence, even a temporary residence, is the same as the right to be armed in the home (which is generally more permanent).

In Osterweil, the plaintiff never made that connection and noticed the court. Because of that, the Judge was able to substitute "domicile" for "home." That changed the entire nature of the complaint.
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.06962 seconds with 7 queries