Originally Posted by kcbrown
You (and possibly others who argue the heightened efficacy of the PI approach) are failing to account for one very important thing: as regards 2nd Amendment action, the main benefit of the PI approach works only if the court sides with you. Which is to say, only if the PI is actually granted. But the very core of the problem is that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that the majority of relevant courts hate and will do everything in their (considerable) power to minimize. Those courts will not grant our preliminary injunction requests.
I have, without exception, been extremely impressed with every federal judge I have ever met. They are, without exception, extremely bright, hard-working people who have dedicated their lives to public service. To say that these good people will deny preliminary injunctions without regard to Supreme Court precedent is imprudent. Look at the 7th Circuit's order in Ezell
, for an example of a court dutifully swallowing a bitter pill. Once the Supreme Court concludes that the people's RKBA includes public carry (in non-sensitive places), the vast majority of courts are going to fall in line. Yes, there will always be courts who interpret the Supreme Court's decisions narrowly. That is not unique to the RKBA -- think of all the decisions narrowing the right to obtain abortions. But I wholly disagree with your belief that judges in the Ninth Circuit will simply disregard Supreme Court precedent finding the RKBA includes public carry.