Replies

For those of you who have not been following this case, here is the recap.

The lawsuit is Lockyer vs Silviera (Lockyer is CA Attorney General, Silviera is one of the plaintiffs). Gary Gorski is the lawyer arguing for Silviera that California's Assault Weapon Ban is unconstitutional.

Stephen Halbrook is a NRA attorney, who doesn't think Gorski's case is a good one. The NRA thinks that a better case would be the Cato Institute vs Washington DC case, since its more direct (doesn't affect the states) case.

Trouble is, the Cato Institute case was not brought forth by the NRA. There was an attempt to enjoin the Cato case with one the NRA is bringing forth against Ashcroft (US Attorney General). The CATO boys don't think its a good idea since it makes their case much more difficult because now, the behemoth Department of Justice gets involved instead of the puffcake Washington DC.

NRA wants a guaranteed 2nd Amendment case that rules in favor of an individual rights interpretation, or no case at all (status quo). Its the guaranteed part that is important. The Gorski case is not guaranteed, but if its lost, it could ripple down to the states Neither is the Cato case, but if its lost, it doesn't ripple down to the states.