Originally Posted by wildhawker
Ok, so just to be clear, every single one of those counties will be litigated up to SCOTUS?
Yes. Any other outcome would require SCOTUS to somehow keep the lower courts from continually making them "say so more plainly". I just don't see that happening.
See NAACP v Alabama
for why I think that.
Osterweil v Bartlett
is an excellent example of defiance of the Supreme Court by state and local governments. If they can do that for keep and bear in the home
, they most certainly can, and will, for keep and bear in public. If that one winds up having to go to the Supreme Court due to the lower courts ruling against us, then it will bolster my case that the lower courts will simply continually make SCOTUS the effective "court of first resort". When you think about it, it makes sense that the lower courts would do that. By establishing a sort of precedent that any 2nd Amendment litigation has to go to SCOTUS for a ruling, they ensure that a loss of the Heller majority will have the most immediate effect, while also maximizing the chance of us losing -- SCOTUS can't overturn them all, according to a saying widely credited to 9th Circuit judge Reinhardt, and not all plaintiffs have sufficient resources to take their case all the way to the Supreme Court.
EDIT: And note that the district court already ruled against us in Osterweil
, so the courts are well on their way towards proving my thesis here.
Roll over and not do *anything* to frustrate access/exercise? Heh. Now you're not being cynical enough.
Well, okay, if you insist on adding San Mateo to the list, then feel free. Twist my arm, why don't you?