Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:56:08 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
. ..

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:13:37 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:


Do you see the slight-of-hand? Silberman reversed the ruling of the
lower court. He did not exactly say the D.C. gun ban was
unconstitutional. He just stated in his opinion that the dismissal of
the original complaint was invalid for the specific reasons given. He
did not state it was invalid for all reasons. So, that does not
necessary make the law itself unconstitutional.

I guess you didn't read down to the part that says "As such, we hold
it
unconstitutional."

We hold "it" unconstitutional. Ask yourself, Dave, just does "it" refer
to in this case.
"It" does not refer to the law itself. "It" refers to the lower courts
interpretation.
Duh! (sorry Ellen, but it applies here so well)

Wilbur Hubbard

Every time you open your mouth you demonstrate you learned NOTHING in
law school. Is that why you're just a two-bit slip-and-fall lawyer?

Wilbur Hubbard


I can vouch that Dave is not an ambulance chaser, or a "slip and fall" lawyer.
He went to a pretty respectable law school, too.

CWM
Goodness...someone quick gve Charlie two aspirin and put him to
bed...he's feeling poorly...