The Appellees filed their supplemental brief on the impact of the Peruta v. San Diego en banc decision on the Baker v. Kealoha appeal. I disagree with the Appellees argument that there is no right to bear arms in public but from a technical standpoint, their brief was very well written.
Compare it to Baker's supplemental brief where, instead of addressing the impact of the en banc Peruta decision, he opens by saying the en banc panel was wrong about concealed carry and then rambled on for 17 pages when he could have simply left it at "This Court’s en banc opinion in Peruta does not meaningfully impact Mr. Baker’s appeal." which is all he really said in response to the court order to file a supplemental brief regarding Peruta v. San Diego en banc.
By the way, if it is true that Baker never applied for a handgun Open Carry permit or plead that it would be futile for him to apply for a handgun Open Carry permit then his quest for a permit to carry a handgun openly or concealed is doomed.
You can read the briefs at my website -> http://ift.tt/2c6xVBv
Compare it to Baker's supplemental brief where, instead of addressing the impact of the en banc Peruta decision, he opens by saying the en banc panel was wrong about concealed carry and then rambled on for 17 pages when he could have simply left it at "This Court’s en banc opinion in Peruta does not meaningfully impact Mr. Baker’s appeal." which is all he really said in response to the court order to file a supplemental brief regarding Peruta v. San Diego en banc.
By the way, if it is true that Baker never applied for a handgun Open Carry permit or plead that it would be futile for him to apply for a handgun Open Carry permit then his quest for a permit to carry a handgun openly or concealed is doomed.
You can read the briefs at my website -> http://ift.tt/2c6xVBv
It looks like Baker v. Kealoha is going to crash and burn.
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire