I approach this case from the standpoint of odds of Supreme Court review. As a practitioner in that Court and a member of its Bar for more than a quarter century, I can guarantee that the general odds of the Court taking any particular case for review is about 1 in 200, or 0.5%. That's the ratio, year in and year out, of the cases taken on certiorari and those offered but declined by the Court.
The Silveira case has already surmounted these odds. The way the Court operates is that the Petitioners file their requests for Certiorari. The Respondents file nothing, because the Court normally rejects such requests without any answer. ONLY WHEN THE COURT CONSIDERS A CASE A LIKELY ONE TO ACCEPT, does the Court require the Respondents to file an answer. The Court has done exactly that in the Silveira case.
Now the odds have shifted. It is about a 90% chance now that the Court will accept the case. And it would not accept the case unless it is prepared to reexamine the question of whether the Second Amendment offers a "personal right" or a "collective" one.
You question whether the basic case is a "scattershot" one, raising a welter of issues and not clean and ready for review. The Court solves those problems on its own. In every case that the Court accepts, it lays out the specific questions it is going to review. So do not worry about the original case that is all over the lot. The Court will narrow it down.
If the Court takes the case, it will state the specific issues on which it has granted certiorari. Then all of us, lawyers and laymen alike, will know the precise questions the Court is going to consider. All briefs and arguments must be addressed to those questions. And all issues not included in that Order will be off the table and out of the case.
I hope that is helpful.
Congressman Billybob
"You question whether the basic case is a "scattershot" one, raising a welter of issues and not clean and ready for review."
That is indeed a funny thing for an NRA guy to question. NRA's Seegars case brings multiple non-RKBA issues to the table. (See: New NRA-Halbrook Gun Lawsuit in DC Counterproductive, Disruptive.) They even tried to force the clean CATO-supported Parker case under their multi-issue banner -- and failed miserably. (See CATO Attorneys to NRA: Butt Out! for facts and amusing/annoying details.) NRA loves giving the courts outs so they don't rule on 2A cleanly. Any among them or infected by their flawed reasoning saying Silveira is scattershot is truly smitten with hypocrisy.
BTW, Congressman B, your posts on this subject thus far have been read by the people doing the work on Silveira -- not only from this thread, either -- and you've been credited by said team for being smart, intelligent and insightful, FYI. Wanna help in some way? I'm sure there's something you could do to assist, while these other "allies" busy themselves attacking a case that's about to be granted certiorari.
All in all, we are grateful that Mr. Haas singled out the very biggest holes in Mr. Kopel's sophomoric hit piece. Those very items will be addressed in a way that shows why Mr. Kopel should stick to research and leave litigation to the professionals now working on Silveira.
As to Mr. Haas, the truest statement he makes in this silly rant is this one: "I am not qualified to determine the merits (or lack thereof) of this case".
The honesty is indeed appreciated -- but not necessary as he merely states the obvious.