Bruen-One year later

[lazarus]

The plaintiff has no control over the choice of judge at District or the three judges chosen for the panel at the Appellate level. If we put all our eggs in one basket and pull the short straw, we're screwed on everything until and unless the case makes it to SCOTUS in a half decade or so.

Also, IIRC, attorneys are often limited by courts in the size of their briefs. The broader the claims, the harder it is to include all the arguments and cites needed in a document limited to X number of pages. Better to take on the worst first, and use the space given to make really solid arguments on a subset of issues than generalize and lose on everything.

You can judge shop if you have the right venue. Some districts only have a single judge, you just have to make sure you file suit in their district. Of course that isn't the case in MD, so you can't really judge shop here.

 

[Magerko]

They want to severely limit where we can carry, and then they have the frickin' nerve to jack up the permit price for both new and renewals. Talk about inflation...

 

[AliasNeo07]

Sorry to be the pessimist, but I am not hopeful. If the current court existed in perpetuity, I would be plenty optimistic. But I think the Republican Civil War and the changing demographics of the country will ensure that in no short order we will never have a conservative Supreme Court again.

 

[RFBfromDE]

But I think the Republican Civil War and the changing demographics of the country will ensure that in no short order we will never have a conservative Supreme Court again.

You mean like Republican dominance in TN, AR and FL?

 

[Garet Jax]

We are fighting a long term war - Bruen was a battle win. I am very pessimistic on our chances in the war. Dems do whatever they need to do to win - most Repubs don't. When I suggested we weaponize the DOJ against the clowns who make laws that are clearly contrary to Bruen - I was attacked and told "we don't want to live in a country willing to do that". Dems are doing that and are doing much, much worse.

How many times have they tried to impeach or prosecute DJT? The timing is very convenient since we're in an election cycle.
They put an American citizen in prison for the "attack on the capital on Jan 6th" even though we know no attack occurred.
They have purposely not prosecuted or punished Biden and Clinton despite clear evidence they have broken laws.
All of the illegals are being allowed in so they can vote for Dems. This is why the Dems are so against any sort of voting laws and are so open to remote voting.
There are just so many examples of what the Dems are doing and how the Repubs have been powerless to stop them.

We are losing the war and unless we toughen up and start playing at their level, we just can't win.

 

[Engine4]

They put an American citizen in prison for the "attack on the capital on Jan 6th" even though we know no attack occurred.

This should be the republican congress' number 1 priority. The fact that it hasn't been proves to me that they're not looking out for us one damn bit. Every one of the J6 political prisoners should be released. I'm at the point now where if a thousand patriots stormed the prison to get them out (I know, highly unlikely), and every one of the guards was killed, I'd be okay with it.

 

[Doctor_M]

I was just day dreaming about what a statement it would make if every gun owner in American went outside at high noon (subject to time zones of course) on a given day, and fired one shot into the ground. They need to hear us and know how many of us there are out here.

 

[MattFinals718]

AWBs, damned if I know. I am in a real negative mood this morning about them and that courts just seem to consistently be turning down PIs. I get the feel that SCOTUS would still hollow out any AWBs. But I've got no clue, maybe the courts will point back to bowie knives and say "sure, that works for an analog. Relief denied". Or maybe they'll point to something else and say "it has to be common and not unusually dangerous, denied" and not bother ruling on WTF unusually dangerous or common means.

Why? We knew that this was probably how it was going to play out. We knew that most of the lower courts where these bans are being challenged (including the 4th Circuit) were not going to rule in our favor, and that at least some will engage in stalling tactics. This has all been discussed and predicted at length, and so far, things are going the way we expected them to go.

I really don't see any way that anyone is going to successfully argue that ANY Title I firearms (including modern tactical rifles) are not constitutionality protected by the standards set in Heller and Bruen. Title II may be another story, though.

 

[MattFinals718]

We are fighting a long term war - Bruen was a battle win. I am very pessimistic on our chances in the war. Dems do whatever they need to do to win - most Repubs don't. When I suggested we weaponize the DOJ against the clowns who make laws that are clearly contrary to Bruen - I was attacked and told "we don't want to live in a country willing to do that". Dems are doing that and are doing much, much worse.

IMHO, a few people on this forum disagreeing with you doesn't mean you're being "attacked." And anyway: It takes far less bravery to talk the way that you talk on a pro-gun forum, where everyone likes to talk a big game about resisting the current administration and/or George Soros, 1776-style. Lazarus (who you accuse of "attacking" you) seems to take way more heat than you do from this forum's members because he's one of the few folks who is not foaming at the mouth.

You have the right to your opinion, but personally, as someone who wishes for government to be out of our lives as much as possible, I have no desire to "weaponize" any government agency - I'd much rather clip their nails instead. The ends do not justify the means if we set precedent that government agencies can act outside of the constitution and carry out politically-motivated attacks against our opponents.