View Single Post
  #258  
Old 12-12-2012, 10:41 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,633
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apocalypsenerd View Post
Normally I'm a realist as well. I value your input because you're a realist and know a lot more than I do. When I read something like this, I just wait for the other shoe to drop. My guess would be an En Banc hearing that delays this out another couple of years. However, with the optimism being generated by just about everyone including you, I think my skepticism may be unwarranted.
En banc is the only real danger I perceive, but it's quite unclear to me how much of a strategic impact there would be if Moore went en banc. The opinion would be depublished and the current law allowed to stand, but I don't know what other effects that would have strategically.

While going en banc would depublish the opinion, that doesn't erase the fact that the opinion was issued. That alone may have strategic value. Those who are "in the know" will have a better idea of what the real impact of this going en banc would be.

I hadn't considered all the consequences of this going en banc, however, and see it as the most likely possibility because it does the most damage.

Bottom line: now I have to adjust my outlook downwards appropriately, but it's still up relative to what it was before the decision.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote