Originally Posted by Ryan_D
San Diego's attorney was attempting to do some spectacular rhetorical gymnastics. The sheriff doesn't burden the right, the statute does, but the statute pertaining to concealed carry is not unconstitutional? LOL
Hawaii's plaintiff's attorney seemed very discombobulated. He didn't seem to be very prepared to argue his case, which is suprising considering he had just heard 2 other attorneys argue more effectively on the broader issue. The "good news" is that his request before the court was only for a preliminary injunction against the law Hawaii was trying to implement, rather than challenging a sheriff's policy or the statute itself.
Here's a picture of the Baker attorney:
We already have a law in place, and that is what the PI is for. We were well ready to argue the case. Trying to compare my attorney to Gura or Clement would be a disservice as both are at the pinnacle of experience for 2a matters.
We were able to answer the courts questions, and more importantly help elicit some very good questions from the panel.
I love the arm chair quarterbacks who don't have too much of an idea what is going on, but are dead set on bashing not only my friend, but my counsel. I'll take opinions of the people we talked to there and others like esqappellate.