Well, it certainly appears like a good thing. But the obvious downside is that federal law can preempt this very easily. Basically any law Congress passes can supersede if they want using the interstate commerce clause.
It's a tough line I imagine to combat the intentionally provocative posts that are meant to demoralize and the earnest users who post their legitimate concerns. But I agree that this forum tends to go too hard on those who criticize.
Also, he is petitioning to appear before SCOTUS pro se. So in the extremely unlikely event SCOTUS actually grants cert, he will not have an attorney. Only him. And he will doubtless be spewing pseudo-legal jibberish that is straight from a sovereign citizen handbook. The man is going to make us look like morons if he gets a platform
It was dismissed earlier this year, appealed, and then the appeals court affirmed the dismissal. So Brunson lost. He has petitioned SCOTUS for review, but SCOTUS has not granted cert (agreed to hear the case) and it's very very unlikely they will. So, it's a nothingburger.
Boy the level of "proof" sure has declined in this forum.
How does this prove anything?
The idea behind short range missiles is to prevent Ukraine from attacking deep into Russian territory and thus provoke a wider conflict, i.e., "The US is directly involved in strikes on Russian territory".
Your bad interpretation of federalism isn't law. Read about preemption.