Please tell me if you think that this is a substantially inaccurate or misleading or unfair characterization of recent years of history:
"When states have enacted shall-issue permitting schemes, there has frequently been some sort of immediate legal challenge to the validity of the entire new statutory structure (for example, NM, MO, MN). Typically, however, either the law has been upheld, or the legislature has quickly amended or re-enacted it, curing any judicially identified defects. To date, no legal challenge in any state has achieved a lasting, meaningful weakening of the overall effect of the shall-issue statutes." I *think* it's a fair statement. But after writing it, it struck me what a remarkable thing that is, if it's true. Hard to imagine so many wildly different versions of a complex statutory system being enacted in 20 or so states (I'm excluding the pre-Florida states), with none of them ever being repealed legislatively or serious weakened or defeated (long-term) judicially. It's really quite astonishing, especially given the background of 100 years of progressively shrinking personal liberties in nearly every other aspect of American life. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
