Judge Upholds DC Gun Control Law

The Washington Post ^ | May 15, 2014 | Ann E. Marimow

[Timber Rattler]

A federal judge on Thursday upheld the District’s tough gun registration laws, finding that new regulations crafted by city officials in response to a Supreme Court decision “pass constitutional scrutiny.”

“The people of this city, acting through their elected representatives, have sought to combat gun violence and promote public safety. The court finds that they have done so in a constitutionally permissible manner,” U.S. District Judge James Boasberg wrote in an opinion likely to be appealed by gun-rights advocates.

[Cboldt]

Law schools teach this principle, more or less. That some cases are decided on an “outcome” basis. Pick the outcome, then write the decision. The key to winning is to present an appealing argument to the decider, generally something that will make the decider look good. The argument need not be logical, and there are enough decisions on the books that cases can be cited for absolutely ANY proposition. There is no requirement to cite a case accurately for what it stands for, cherry picking language is encouraged and practiced. All the courts cheat this way. It’s quite clear when one actually studies the cases cited as precedents, and what they are “deemed” to stand for. Quite often, 180 degrees opposed. SCOTUS does that too.

[Dead Corpse]

Laws that blatantly infringe a Right that is explicitly not to be infringed?

‘Judges’ like this should face treason charges and potential execution.

[ought-six]

Judges stopped being jurists to become politicians a long time ago.