Oh no, Mickey Rourke has got a point, but of course came to the incorrect conclusion.

When I realized the trickster fox is somehow more trustworthy than the rest. Also ad blockers.

Edit. Tab based containers has also been pretty cool.

I agree in principle, but not in totality (largely due to bad faith arguements). Everyone should have the right to privacy and basic essentials, to carry a glock around wherever not so much.

By talking point, you mean how the US constitution was written and the whole point of the supreme court?

Edit: Until congress does their job and pass legislation on these matters, this is unfortunately how the cookie crumbles.

Also ignoring the web 1.0 webpage, why did Scalia argue that this portion of the 2A can be ignored? Cant the state pass laws to maintain the well regulation of arms?

Slavery was always legal and only after the civil war did restrictions come about (you can probably guess what group of people this was meant to target). Ignoring hyperbole, it is a fact that the "well regulated" portion of the 2A was understood to allow for restrictions until Scalia made up a reason to ignore it, again in 2008.

Im not going to defend the way NY is going about it, but to say there is no history for gun regulation by States is ignoring history and stare decisis.

How come it took so long if the premise was correct the entire time?

Just a reminder that the right to bear arms in public places was only established in 2008.

Since 2008. It was well understood that regulations were fine until then

Spin is easy, it just only shows in our current formulation of quantum mechanics, has no classical counterpart, is sort of a type of angular momentum, but isn't, whatever shut up.

"Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal"

Can't afford to buy, can't meet exaggerated rent criteria,..., profit? I did see a nice rock i might be able to live under, as long as the HOA fees aren't too bad.

You do have to be a lawyer to afford a chair with arms these days.

Only because his mommy told him it would make him a very bad boy.

The legal barrier to prove union busting basically means little recourse will be made.

What I think happened was the government submitted sealed documents (i. E. not for public disclosure) for consideration in the case and she made public reference/comments on the aforementioned documents, potentially exposing another ongoing investigation.

Anyone more lawyerly feel free to correct.

She was glad and decided to show her gratitude by suing.

Try the last couple of hours. OPs on a mission.

I would also definitely not seed anything as well, especially when utilizing a VPN.

Edit: word

Doesn't help that the supreme court protects both their ignorance of the law and specifically stated multiple times they are not bound by any duty that even closely resembles "protect and serve".