View Single Post
Old 11-20-2012, 8:13 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,542
iTrader: 1 / 100%

Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Yep, because you talk directly with soooooo may sheriffs and counties counsel...
Ahem. Santa Clara. Scocca v Smith. Los Angeles. Lu v Baca. I'm sure both Smith and Baca are quaking in their boots.

You did hint that there was some interesting action that was likely to happen on the former, and I await that eagerly. However, that does nothing to diminish my skepticism because I expect that case will have to go to the Supreme Court before we get any relief there. And I expect the same will prove true of Lu v Baca.

May I remind you that even the victory we won in Sacramento is, as of a number of months ago, a rather hollow one due to the sheer amount of time it takes for anyone to get an LTC from them? And you can't claim that it's not their own doing -- you know it is. I will, however, be the first one to admit that it is an improvement over what was there previously. It will take further work to straighten that out (and Sacramento could easily wind up being a perfect target for part of our strategy. ).

The victory we seek will take a very long time. But time is not on our side anymore, and that is why I am as deeply skeptical (while remaining hopeful at the same time) as I am.

I can understand some level of cynicism but in toto? Silly.
My skepticism is limited primarily to the anti-gun strongholds. My statements were not meant to refer to more "pliable" counties such as Sacramento, though even those are still resisting.

There is a very large chance that we will lose the Supreme Court before we can position our pieces for a checkmate. This is chess, not checkers, but with one crucial difference: we're on a clock, and the timing of our moves is not under our full control.

What do you think will happen if Scocca v Smith winds up hitting the Supreme Court after, and not before, we lose the Heller majority? What do you think will happen, in the event of a loss of the Heller majority, with the followup lawsuits that we will inevitably have to file in order to combat the "creative" ways counties such as Santa Clara will come up with to deny us the right to carry in public? The loss of the Supreme Court will renew the vigor with which such counties will resist, because they will know that if we have to take them to court, we will lose at the top.

So if we lose the Heller majority before the right to carry in public is fully secured -- before counties such as Los Angeles and Santa Clara are out of ammunition -- then we lose, period. We are in grave danger. This is why we must fight that much harder and that much faster.

The biggest problem by far is that we could win everything outside of California, but that is meaningless for Californians unless we win everything in California as well. That's because laws, regulations, and enforcement all remain in place until either explicitly and successfully challenged in court or voluntarily withdrawn, and the latter will not happen in the anti-gun strongholds. Even that wouldn't be a problem were it not for the near certainty that the Supreme Court will continue to be, in effect, the court of first resort for cases brought in California even in the face of strong Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Supreme Court will continue to "have to say so more plainly", and it will not put the hammer down to stop that.
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-20-2012 at 8:51 PM..
Reply With Quote