Ok, this has bugged me for some time. so I am gonna try to get some clarification as to how this works. I see constantly in legal discussions, both here and on tv (not like CSI, but like congress and real documentaries). where people of lawyerlike intelligence "People who make laws and stuff like that" site one case while debating another case. I was just reading the topic about ga carry and athens and it spawned this thought train in my head. Where, one "lawyer" basically says that there is no case, because it has been tried before.
Berryman cited a successful defense in Coweta County, where in June, a judge dismissed a similar lawsuit GeorgiaCarry.org filed in February. The organization appealed the decision, and the state Court of Appeals has not yet decided whether to hear the appeal |
.
So since it was tried in wyoming, or anywhere else, means we arent supposed to go at it here? I understand that they are just trying to keep the legal system cluttered. Here is my issue with it.
1. The judge hould have been a total leftwing anti gun, jane Fonda courting hippie, this is going to throw bias into the decision.
2. If the lawyer on EITHER side was a pinhead, and the lawyer on the other was shit hot, and extremely cunning, the better lawyer is going to win, even if it is a stupid case.
3. Just because a lawyer can not make a case of his own, doesnt mean that he should be able to site some random case from 50 years ago, where bubba killed his wifes dog cause it was barking and his uncle Jethro the judge let him go, doesnt mean they should throw the case out.
4. Just because it right in California, doesnt mean its right here.
I am just trying to figure out how this works....I mean shit if you were to go congress and start quiting from the constitution about the second ammendment, they would just yell about how outdated it is....When do these court rulings become outdated?