As much as I hate to admit it.
Alan Gura's strategy of going one piece at a time and building a solid foundation is the way to go.
We are in new constitutional territory where the federal courts are actually applying the 2nd amendment to state and local governments.
This Supreme court is not an activist court, as such, they are not going to make broad rulings and they will avoid cases that will do so.
To me the court has signaled they want "clean plantiffs" and "narrowly tailored clean cases" in 2nd amendment challenges.
The Supreme court obviously knows that there are 20,000 plus gun laws across the country and by selectively picking cases, they can define the scope of the 2nd amendment without invalidating what they see as reasonable gun regulations.
Like it or not, Alan has to get "5" justices to agree with him on any one point. Getting "low hanging fruit" first builds the legal foundation to work our way up the tree for 'higher fruit".
The court is well aware of what happened post Roe vs. Wade with the wholesale invalidation of abortion laws all across the United States and something tells me that the Conservatives on this court don't want to do something similar with gun laws.
A key phase from Justice Scalia of "ordered Liberty" strikes me as the court saying, we will deal with 2nd amendment cases, but don't push us to where we don't want to go.
The court will stay away from cases that can go sideways on other issues.
The "Willits" case from Oregon is a perfect example.
Here the Oregon Supreme court told the sheriffs of Oregon that they had to issue CCW permits to medical marijuana card holders and the sheriffs were complaining that they would be violating federal law.
The case was appealed to the US Supreme court and the court denied cert.
That case could have opened up not only 2nd amendment issues, but "Commerce Clause", 9th, 10th and 14th amendment issues.
While the court is showing restraint in overturning laws, I think the court will take a "dim view" of newly enacted gun laws that are counter to "Heller".
When state and local governments make laws that are counter to the "Heller ruling", the Supreme court has to have a smack down if for no other reason that to force state and local governments to respect the federal courts.
Last edited by nicki; 01-31-2013 at 1:41 AM..