Calguns Legal Red Team/OPFOR

[wildhawker]

No thanks, we'll keep winning while everyone that wants to hugs it out.

-Brandon

[whatpain]

i just want to say i appreciate the hard work and its a shame that it takes lawyers to secure our freedoms but that is what this country has come to i guess

[wjc]

As long as Gene, Brandon, Alan et al can eventually get me 20 round mags, I'm all for 'em.

I'm a simple man with simple tastes.

[Gray Peterson]

Gray,

Chris in Hawaii might disagree with your first point. I would, too.

-Brandon

I'm speaking of the super crazies, not merely just dis honesty and back stabbing.

[G60]

As long as Gene, Brandon, Alan et al can eventually get me 20 round mags, I'm all for 'em.

I'm a simple man with simple tastes.

You might have to buy a few sets of four.

[wjc]

[HokeySon]

***
Also, don't forget how exposed the nacent 2A is to the criminal defense bar. You see this writ large in the MCDV cases.
***

What do you mean by this?

[Connor P Price]

2) Charles Nichols. Mr. Nichols has repeatedly stated that Alan Gura is in this for the money rather than for the right, and that SAF/CGF is anti-open carry.

This assertion by Nichols is one of the most foolish things I've heard, and shows in no uncertain terms that Nichols has no idea what he's talking about. A prominent DC Beltway lawyer with a 2-0 record at SCOTUS and history as a very successful Deputy AG in California could be making a lot more money doing something other than strategic civil rights litigation.

The dollar figures he brings in by winning a case my seem large at first glance, but I'd guess that he's actually losing quite a bit of money in opportunity costs and doing so only because he knows that it's the right thing to do.

[wash]

He means the case of Drug Dealer v. Harris.

But as for the Achilles heel of our movement, it could be solved with a few litmus tests:

Would you rather lose your right to keep and bear arms or see the US government recognize same sex marriage?

Would you rather gain the right to carry a functional firearm in two years or sue for your own carry rights in a case that is destined to lose?

Would you rather upset the antis so much that bad legislation gets proposed or leave your empty gun in the car when you go to Starbucks?

There are probably a few more tests.

We are fighting the best we can but some people who would fail those tests keep setting us back and making things unnecessarily harder for us.

If anyone asks what same sex marriage and gun rights have to do with each other, if the bad court decisions that we want overturned get overturned, it may bolster the argument that equal protection of the law constitutionally protects the rights of same sex couples to marry.

If that bothers you more than losing your civil right to keep and bear arms, you aren't needed.

[OleCuss]

No thanks, we'll keep winning while everyone that wants to hugs it out.

-Brandon

Just for you, Brandon!

[hoffmang]

What do you mean by this?

I'm going to concur with Wash, but the best examples of this is that the California State Courts have already ruled that so called assault weapons are not protected arms by the Second Amendment because they are dangerous or unusual in a criminal case. Of course, "assault weapons" are no more dangerous than any other rifle (maybe less so) and they are exceedingly common, but hey - it's guns in a California state court so a judge must throw all signs of rational thought out to stop guns. Now if only he or she would disarm their bailiffs who have the exact same things...

-Gene

[taperxz]

He means the case of Drug Dealer v. Harris.

But as for the Achilles heel of our movement, it could be solved with a few litmus tests:

Would you rather lose your right to keep and bear arms or see the US government recognize same sex marriage?

Would you rather gain the right to carry a functional firearm in two years or sue for your own carry rights in a case that is destined to lose?

Would you rather upset the antis so much that bad legislation gets proposed or leave your empty gun in the car when you go to Starbucks?

There are probably a few more tests.

We are fighting the best we can but some people who would fail those tests keep setting us back and making things unnecessarily harder for us.

If anyone asks what same sex marriage and gun rights have to do with each other, if the bad court decisions that we want overturned get overturned, it may bolster the argument that equal protection of the law constitutionally protects the rights of same sex couples to marry.

If that bothers you more than losing your civil right to keep and bear arms, you aren't needed.

This is cool^^^

For all the hard core conservatives out there, We will win using a "liberal agenda" Fight fire with fire.

[wash]

Liberal agenda isn't winning things, it's a single issue agenda that wins.

Our judicial system is totally out of whack when the supreme court fairly regularly accepts "living document" theories of the meaning of the constitution instead of going with original intent and forcing the states to amend when they feel change is necessary.

We need a re-boot and a legislature that actually tries to protect our civil rights instead of destroy them.

The way to get there is using persuasive legal arguments to fix those problems but our margin of error is slim.

Winning is everything.