I share your concern. Some statutes and legal principals are "well-settled" as attorneys say, but many are not. Even when the law is "clear," it's application to specific fact patterns can be problematic and uncertain.Abraham wrote:I see many questions asked and many opinions offered on matters of law regarding weapons here, but opinions are just that.
When it comes to weapons and law, I'm concerned some of us read opinions that frankly aren't qualified.
How do I separate those who are offering their opinion vs. those actually in the know?
Thanks!
In my posts, I try to acknowledge when the law on an issue is well-settled or not. I also try to acknowledge counter arguments that can be presented with a specific fact pattern and I often indicate whether I know of any case law or the issue.
Most people would view my opinion on diagnosis and treatment of medical maladies, or my recommendations to NASA on how to design a heat shield for the shuttle, with a great deal of caution. This same approach should be taken to legal opinions offered by non-lawyers who do not otherwise possess expertise in the subject matter. Other reliable sources would be LEO's, CHL Instructors, law professors, or even people who have personal experience with the subject matter.
I think most posters do a pretty good job of making it known that they are expressing their personal opinions. People also need to recognize that even between "experts," disagreements of the meaning or scope of a statute, or the application of case law to a specific fact pattern occur.
Chas.