Originally Posted by IVC
Agreed, but I still stand by assertion that the lower courts act the way they act primarily due to the lack of established framework and not so much out of their free will.
The trips to SCOTUS are required precisely in order to provide the required guidance. Remember, there was a recent court case where the appellate court stated something along the lines: "If the Supreme Court intended the right to arms to extend outside the home they should say so." Is it a cynical defiance, or a genuine call for guidance?
Kachalsky should clarify that particular issue. Keep our fingers crossed.
You have every right to stand by anything you wish. It just doesn't change the reality of the judicial revolt that's been taking place. We don't pay these supposedly learned judges to refuse to follow pretty clear precedent that an enumerated right is subject to protection under strict scrutiny. We also don't pay them to call rational basis intermediate scrutiny and grasp at any straw or just refuse to rule so rights may continue to be violated. We have a Washington DC case that has been sitting waiting for a decision for 3 years and rulings in the 2nd Circus that have little more than wagging their middle finger at SCOTUS. No this will take two to four to perhaps as many as a dozen trips up the ladder before the most stubborn judges give in and accept the 2nd Amendment is a right to be enjoyed without by commoners.
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association