Follow me on Twitter: @Gamedogs

Success is not measured by what you accomplish, but by the opposition you have encountered, and the courage with which you have maintained the struggle against overwhelming odds."
~ Orison Swett Marden

We have 40 guests and no members online

April 20, 2010

from an email I exchanged with a friend:

the h$u$ has already issued press releases asking for more/different laws.  and the ruling and dissent both hint that the dog fighting aspect may or may not be of "serious" value (alito says more plainly it isn't unless pro-AR) and what is the definition of serious anyway? (I love courts)  lol  they leave it pretty clear that they are ruling on an almost class-like basis and not by individual merit.  if a narrower law was tested who knows.  this coulda been 5 years ago if [a certain someone else] had had the guts bob did.  very (very!) few dog people do.  people always talk about "this isn't right", "this should be against the law", "it's criminal what they had done to them" but then they almost all take deals and never test it.  laws are only unconstitutional if there're people willing to stand up in court and say so.

I'm curious what the civil ramifications of this will be. 


way to go bob stevens! 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf

or it can also be viewed here:
http://gamedogs.org/?view=article&id=321

edit: additionally, I have looked it over pretty well by now and have highlighted some areas I thought were of particular interest.  I will look it over many more times I'm sure, such things take many readings to fully comprehend. 
http://gamedogs.org/docs/08-769-marked.pdf

^