Bad cases make bad law, as they say. Go ahead and fight the PR war between the creepy little pervert twerp and the teenage gansta wannabe.
Nevertheless, a huge case for the gun industry, deciding whether patriots have the right to murder teenagers in a public place if they don't like the way they look. Of course the do, they're patriots.
I don't think gun control is going anywhere but do think as a matter of principle as to whether expanded carry laws in any way shield shooters from civil financial liability.
That is kind of a sidesplitter, really, the idea that some extreme interpretation of the 2nd amendment somehow trumps the notion of personal responsibility as a foundation of the English legal tradition.
Zim, doesn't have a pot to piss in anyway
(although I'm sure that every whackjob in the country will be ready to donate to his "defense" and in the end he'll do very well by all of this). However I assume that most of the people who post here do have assets and I do believe if they want to play Die Hard and get it wrong they should be subject to potentially losing it all.
Of course they are patriots, so I don't know.
