Is there a reason the Supremes are reluctant to consider carry rights?

Interesting analysis and one with which I largely agree. It seems to me that the AG really screwed up in failing to intervene earlier. She stands a real risk of having her motion to intervene denied, as California's statute is not directly implicated by the panel's decision. They were either ignorant or arrogant in failing to intervene earlier and, given the repeated opportunities, I doubt they were merely ignorant. You have to enjoy the fix in which they find themselves now. I rather hope that the motion to intervene is denied and the court lets them stew in it.
 
nor is she beholden to any activist group
Click to expand...

Who does she serve at the pleasure of, if anyone? i.e. who can fire her, and/or tell her what to do? The only people who aren't beholden to an interest group have a lifetime appointment and can't be fired, only impeached.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top