Quote:
|
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
If successful on the ADA issue, I would be concerned that is could result only in a narrow waiver for the infirmed. While that would obviously be a good thing, it could be addressed with a narrow exception.
|
Well, the Court can't create a waiver, right? So they would have to either allow this law or strike it down, wouldn't they?
So if they strike it down, the legislature will have to get all the political capital together to create / pass a new law, featuring the waiver (assuming the ADA issue is the only problem with the bill). That might not be so easy, esp given the recall and this suit...I could see plenty of unsteady seats not wanting to sign back on...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck
But then you'd have an equal protection question, no? Turn it around. What if a person that has an auditory sensitivity disability was allowed the legal use of a suppressor (without a tax stamp or allowed use within a State (CA) that bans them) , while at the same time, denying it's use by a deaf person (no need) Maybe a bad example, but you get the point. If they go down that road, shall we say slippery slope?
|
Chuck, you are on a roll today. That's very interesting. I didn't even know there was an auditory sensitivity disability!