Be respectful of others' views and choices.
 #111757  by GLOCKGIRL
 
I understand what you are trying to say and this was not my personal experience.
I NEVER SAID IT WAS, just justifying what PJD832 said and because I know him too
In person , and I know the facts from him in person :lol:
 #112069  by NCC
 
Goody! I can't wait for the mainstream media to pick this up, expound on this for us and tell us all the background here with the full decision. <holding breath now!>
 #112071  by NCC
 
The News Urinal story aside... See????
 #112084  by Flanker_27
 
Thanks for the link to the judge's decision, that'll help us gun owners for when the next big lawsuit comes...
 #112218  by California_Exile
 
The Delaware Supreme Court has affirmed the decision in favor of Cabelas, in a summary order that just says "the Superior Court got it right."

https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Do ... ?id=298360

The case was heard en banc, by all five members of the Court, and all agreed in the outcome. Justices Valihura, Vaughn and Traynor were on our side in the state parks case. Chief Justice Seitz joined the dissent in that case. The other member of the en banc panel was Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock, sitting by designation; I believe that's because there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court at the time the case was heard.
 #112617  by nicholosonjack
 
The complaint says several times that the straw purchaser listed a false address on the 4473. It *doesn't* say that the address failed to match the ID the straw purchaser presented, nor does it say that Cabela's failed to check the ID against the 4473 (which is their normal practice). Paragraph 34 says that "providing information on the 4473 that does not match the identification provided for the background check" is an indicator that the sale might be unlawful. Maybe so, but the complaint doesn't allege, not even "on information and belief," that that happened with this sale.

Of course! I understand it and I'm gonna try it. thanks for sharing .