the guys arguing ARE lawyers.
the guys arguing ARE lawyers.
Man, if for nothing else, I can't wait for SCOTUS to decide one way or another on this case, just because MDS' self-appointed constitutional lawyers have been particularly active this past week. Wading through pages of bickering and nit-picking is labor-intensive! 9:30 can't come fast enough!
Maybe it would be a good idea to figure out why there are so many losses and figure out how to actually win.
We know why we're losing: many judges tend to defer to the state's judgement. That is why the only win/loss that actually matters is at SCOTUS, which at least tends to be less deferential.Maybe it would be a good idea to figure out why there are so many losses and figure out how to actually win.
Man, if for nothing else, i can't wait for lawyers to start winning cases, that day can't come fast enough.
MD AWB Loss
DC AWB Loss
NY AWB Loss
CT AWB Loss
Highland Park AWB Loss
CO Magazine Limit Loss
SF Storage Ordinance Loss
MD CCW Loss
NJ CCW Loss
CA CCW Loss
etc
Maybe it would be a good idea to figure out why there are so many losses and figure out how to actually win.
Yes, that's when the 2nd Amendment addressed open carry (and concealed, for that matter, since the Amendment makes no mention of any form of carry) -- when it was penned/ratified. But the protection of carry by the 2nd Amendment did not become operative until Heller, because it wasn't until that point that the Supreme Court recognized the right as one held by individuals.
Let me get this straight: if neither party raises an argument that includes a particular Supreme Court precedent, the lower court in question is not bound by that precedent with respect to a decision it would issue in that case???
Possibly all heard by obama appointees?
IANAL, but getting closer
We know why we're losing: many judges tend to defer to the state's judgement. That is why the only win/loss that actually matters is at SCOTUS, which at least tends to be less deferential.
Before first amendment principles were firmly established, all sorts of censorship and government pressure was permitted. First amendment doctrine as we know it was not really developed until the late 1920s. I am sure that there were a lot of appellate losses over that period.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. There are so many losses currently primarily because 2nd Amendment law is really only in its infancy. What really matters at this point is the quality and persuasiveness of the dissents.