SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (56593)10/1/1999 4:28:00 AM
From: nihil  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
I believe this is California state Court of Appeals rather than the federal Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. I believe this decision will be appealed to the California Supreme Court. After that, of course, if they can find fourteenth or second amendment issue, as they can, it can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (56593)10/1/1999 2:59:00 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
Interesting that the court held that the fingerprint resistance meant that the guns were attrative to criminals. I would have assumed it meant that the metal was resistant to metal corrosion caused by the oils and acids in fingerprints. As you know, fingerprints can spoil collectible metal objects, such as coins. Body oils are very damaging to other fine things, such as pearls and opals.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News