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.
That's getting into territory of unrealistic.
The lower courts might not like the right, but no one in their right mind would go directly against a Supreme Court ruling. Very bad for their future careers. There are also recourses.
The rulings we are getting these days represent the lack of established precedent much more than any ideological position held by the courts. The whole game right now is to get a "carry case" in front of SCOTUS and expand on Heller dicta by creating a binding precedent. This will remove the wriggling room courts have now. However, expecting the courts to play outside the rules even after the framework is set is just, well, a stretch.