Tweet
Not really. Other than HI, we don't have AW bans.
There is nothing to weigh in about, other than to point out how violative of the 2A California laws are.
Actually, there is an alternate path forward that is much faster with guaranteed favorable results. It called being an Idahoan.
So - you don't think those states should be able to weigh in on decisions that might affect their residents, their laws, and their court precedents? They HAVE to have that opportunity if the interests of justice are to be served in the entire circuit.
Not only that - The system has a bias for causing as little "sea change" as possible. For every big decision that changes something fundamental, there are a hundred or a thousand "little" issues that now have to be re-decided. This overwhelms the courts, makes law books outdated, makes knowledge that police, prosecutors, judges and others "obsolete". While you may think that's a "good thing" when it comes to setting an issue right (according to YOUR viewpoint) just imagine when the shoe is on the other foot and now you have to re-litigate cases you "won" which are now superseded.
As far as the 9th putting other 2A cases "on hold" pending decisions at SCOTUS - they kind of have to do this when they know a case is in the pipeline that may render a judgment of theirs obsolete. That just wastes a lot of everybody's time, because then the court has to re-hear and re-decide the case. This actually favors us in the long run because our resources are more scarce than the states... and the money spent re-hearing a certain case is better spent on initial litigation for the NEXT case.
People get impatient and are prone to assign the worst possible motives, but the system exists because - imperfect and sometimes frustrating though it may be - it's actually a fairly decent method for deciding big issues and the laws surrounding them with as little general disruption as possible.
If every case coming through the system had the potential to overnight turn everything upside down, there would be a huge bias against such cases being filed/heard.
The way forward here is to work the process, let the 9th do it's worst, and then let SCOTUS make it clear what constitutional criteria any decision of theirs will have to satisfy. In this case that means waiting out NYSRPA and then letting the 9th hear the cases we have in the pipeline presently. Judge Benitez has done an excellent job of showing our team the winning arguments and where the state is vulnerable through errors in logic, procedure, and matters of fact. The job for our side now is to properly exploit that information - get a pry-bar into that crack and really put our back into it.
Yes it's slow. But doing it right means we do it once (one tiny chunk at a time if necessary) and have it done-done. Creating a foundation that not only ourselves but our heirs, and theirs, can build on to secure the future of the 2nd amendment.
As far as the 9th putting other 2A cases "on hold" pending decisions at SCOTUS - they kind of have to do this when they know a case is in the pipeline that may render a judgment of theirs obsolete. That just wastes a lot of everybody's time, because then the court has to re-hear and re-decide the case. This actually favors us in the long run because our resources are more scarce than the states... and the money spent re-hearing a certain case is better spent on initial litigation for the NEXT case.
People get impatient and are prone to assign the worst possible motives, but the system exists because - imperfect and sometimes frustrating though it may be - it's actually a fairly decent method for deciding big issues and the laws surrounding them with as little general disruption as possible.
If every case coming through the system had the potential to overnight turn everything upside down, there would be a huge bias against such cases being filed/heard.
The way forward here is to work the process, let the 9th do it's worst, and then let SCOTUS make it clear what constitutional criteria any decision of theirs will have to satisfy. In this case that means waiting out NYSRPA and then letting the 9th hear the cases we have in the pipeline presently. Judge Benitez has done an excellent job of showing our team the winning arguments and where the state is vulnerable through errors in logic, procedure, and matters of fact. The job for our side now is to properly exploit that information - get a pry-bar into that crack and really put our back into it.
Yes it's slow. But doing it right means we do it once (one tiny chunk at a time if necessary) and have it done-done. Creating a foundation that not only ourselves but our heirs, and theirs, can build on to secure the future of the 2nd amendment.
Comment