Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
I'm finding lots of local and wire reports on it, but none say why the judge ruled as he did. Many, though, do say that he found it to be unconstitutional "on the limited facts of this case," so I take that to mean he held that the ordinance was unconstitutionally applied in this case, not that it is unconstitutional on its face.
|
Ok, that makes more sense.