Jason Flare
NES Member
Actually the state did concede. They stopped being a broken record and dreamed up some ridiculous restrictions.To be fair, the states attorney was like a broken record stating that in no way does their proposed order mean they think it should be ordered. I.e. they did not concede anything, they were ordered by the court to draft something, and they did, but took every chance to say "you should not enact this draft, what we did was already good to go".
The judge did tell them, in pretty plain english, that no, they could not do that.
The judge did nothing but agree with the state.
On the other hand the state could have said something like, “In good conscience we see no way for gun shops to open in this uncertain time.“ Just like the plaintiff took the opposite stand that gun shops were essential and should be allowed to open under existing social distancing guidelines.
I don’t see the judge doing any more than getting the state to admit their broken record wasn’t broken and then conceded to the state’s requirements.
Last edited: