Search results for query: *

As we often say here, a news article is an inadequate basis for a serious discussion of legal issues.

It's most likely too early to tell. I started looking at this issue because it's probably going to come up in our classes. All I've seen so far are vague generalities. As we often say, the details matter. So until we start seeing some concrete proposals, there's really nothing to discuss...

This thread, "What to do After a Self Defense Encounter", might be a place to start.

The OP’s question has long since been answered.

As we often say here, a news article is a poor basis for a serious discussion of legal matters.

I think this ground has been covered.

Going nowhere fast.

Nothing really to discuss without the actually decision.

Okay, a legal/technical focused discussion of those matter could be interesting and relevant. So I'll leave this open for a while to see if a serious, substantive, evidence based discussion develops.

It was a search warrant. It was served at the premises to be searched.

Your “belief” isn’t much to go on when the penalties if you’re wrong can be significant. If the best you can do on a legal question is post your belief, unsupported with citation to legal authority, don’t bother posting, especially in the Legal Forum.

Not really. That is the text of the bill as originally introduced. The link is labeled, "Original Text", and the pdf shows a release date of 18 April 2023. The history tracking shows multiple amendments to the original bill, so the version of the bill one sees when following the links from your...

By the way, I checked the legislative history. This might not be law yet. A final version was passed by the Senate on 14th March, and at least as of that date still needed to be signed by the governor. Maybe there’s some chance to lobby for a veto.

Delaware.law could be very relevant, but no one is actually discussing the law. No one posted the actual law, or at least a link to the text of the actual law. No one is talking about what the law actually says. If you want to talk about real law, by all means do so in the Legal Forum. But you...

Not really a legal discussion. Moved the General Discussion.

As provided in the Rules, THR is: Accordingly, the Rules provide: So this thread is closed as off-topic for THR.

It's not that it's a dumb question, but there's no way we can answer it. Whether your existing trust will serve your needs for NFA items depends, among other things, on exactly what your existing trust says (which is none of our business) and exactly what your personal, financial circumstances...

RIP. Condolences to his friends and family.

A number of posts have been deleted. This is not a place for rant fests. Let’s have some substantive, evidence based discussion or the thread will be closed.

I hope someone will start a new thread on this when he can supply a link to the actual decision.