Originally Posted by wildhawker
Yep, because you talk directly with soooooo may sheriffs and counties counsel...
Ahem. Santa Clara. Scocca v Smith
. Los Angeles. Lu v Baca
. I'm sure both Smith and Baca are quaking in their boots.
hint that there was some interesting action that was likely to happen on the former, and I await that eagerly. However, that does nothing to diminish my skepticism because I expect that case will have to go to the Supreme Court before we get any relief there
. And I expect the same will prove true of Lu v Baca
May I remind you that even the victory we won in Sacramento is, as of a number of months ago, a rather hollow one due to the sheer amount of time it takes for anyone to get an LTC from them? And you can't claim that it's not their own doing -- you know it is. I will, however, be the first one to admit that it is
an improvement over what was there previously. It will take further work to straighten that out (and Sacramento could easily wind up being a perfect target for part of our strategy.
The victory we seek will take a very long time. But time is not
on our side anymore, and that
is why I am as deeply skeptical (while remaining hopeful at the same time) as I am.
I can understand some level of cynicism but in toto? Silly.
My skepticism is limited primarily to the anti-gun strongholds. My statements were not meant to refer to more "pliable" counties such as Sacramento, though even those are still resisting
There is a very large chance that we will lose the Supreme Court before we can position our pieces for a checkmate. This is chess, not checkers, but with one crucial difference: we're on a clock, and the timing of our moves is not
under our full control.
What do you think will happen if Scocca v Smith
winds up hitting the Supreme Court after, and not before, we lose the Heller majority? What do you think will happen, in the event of a loss of the Heller majority, with the followup lawsuits that we will inevitably have to file in order to combat the "creative" ways counties such as Santa Clara will come up with to deny us the right to carry in public? The loss of the Supreme Court will renew
the vigor with which such counties will resist, because they will know that if we have to take them to court, we will lose at the top
So if we lose the Heller majority before the right to carry in public is fully
secured -- before counties such as Los Angeles and Santa Clara are out of ammunition
-- then we lose, period. We are in grave
danger. This is why we must fight that much harder and that much faster.
The biggest problem by far is that we could win everything outside of California, but that is meaningless for Californians unless we win everything in California as well. That's because laws, regulations, and enforcement all remain in place until either explicitly and successfully challenged in court or voluntarily withdrawn, and the latter will not happen in the anti-gun strongholds. Even that wouldn't be a problem were it not for the near certainty that the Supreme Court will continue to be, in effect, the court of first resort for cases brought in California even in the face of strong Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Supreme Court will continue to "have to say so more plainly", and it will not put the hammer down to stop that.