Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 16,283
- Reactions
- 34,597
Armed Scholar is a clickbait guySupreme Court eliminates concealed carry laws & creates carry across State lines
progressive bleating to soon follow!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Armed Scholar is a clickbait guySupreme Court eliminates concealed carry laws & creates carry across State lines
progressive bleating to soon follow!
Also, it's a little misleading to say the supreme court did it. They filed Bruen, which is a slight difference.Armed Scholar is a clickbait guy
This is true.A trial court judge's rulings do not set precedent for future cases. In some cases they may be cited as persuasive, but most jurisdictions prohibit even mentioning other trial court rulings in the current court.
It's still good bait for libs on HuffpostA trial court judge's rulings do not set precedent for future cases. In some cases they may be cited as persuasive, but most jurisdictions prohibit even mentioning other trial court rulings in the current court.
Got quite a ways to go before it becomes Statewide ruling and then there's still the Federal District Court of Appeals which is very likely to rule against this Judge.DOJ Job #1: Target that judge for removal.
If it was dismissed "with prejudice", it cannot be re-filed. If done "without prejudice" it can (and probably will) be re-filed.Got quite a ways to go before it becomes Statewide ruling and then there's still the Federal District Court of Appeals which is very likely to rule against this Judge.
Edit. This is why the Judge in this particular case moved to dismiss the case. The DA/Commonwealth can choose to appeal to the MA Superior Court; but I'm not rightly sure that a case that was moved to dismiss, can be appealed?
More research required. The defense almost certainly made a motion to dismiss with prejudice, but that does not fit the news narrative.Last page, last paragraphs does say ""allow motion to dismiss. So ordered 8-3-23"", signed by Judge. So not sure what's the current status of that as Massachusetts court update system is really byzantine and complicated and just not easy to navigate/find..
My understanding is that unless "with prejudice" is specifically stated in the order then "without prejudice" is the default without having to be stated. Further action may be taken against the defendant.Last page, last paragraphs does say ""allow motion to dismiss. So ordered 8-3-23"", signed by Judge. So not sure what's the current status of that as Massachusetts court update system is really byzantine and complicated and just not easy to navigate/find..