• BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    17 hours ago

    At issue was a state law that barred 18-to-20 years olds from open carrying firearms during declared states of emergencies.

    So 99% of the time nothing’s different. 😐

    • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      So do you suppose the SC is basically saying “quit bringing us these piss-ant rulings, bring us the real shit” by basically ignoring this one? Takes no work to just ignore it, but requires a lot of work to write up a contentious 6-3 ruling? I can’t understand it otherwise.