[KeepAndBearArms]

Kates is going to regret this almost as much as Kopel's going to regret his ignorant, snide rant of two weeks ago.

AW issues are not presented to the S Ct. Only a few basic constitutional questions are presented -- the very questions he wants answered. AWs are for later and trial. Silveira is a first step. Kates is mistating what Silveira is about in a few ways and going from there. And it will go down in history as such, after Silveira is heard and won.

Mike Hass. You're pathetic. If this is the best you ladies can do, the forthcoming reply to Kopel will sail right over your pea brain.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Kates is going to regret this almost as much as Kopel's going to regret his ignorant, snide rant of two weeks ago.

AW issues are not presented to the S Ct. Only a few basic constitutional questions are presented -- the very questions he wants answered.

---

Yes, Kates and Kopel are right in principle on Constitutional strategy, but wrong to suggest that this case is the wrong one, or biting off too big of a chunk.

The key is that SCOTUS can rule that it is an individual right, without ruling on whether the ban is an acceptable restriction or a prohibited infringement. California courts will rule that it IS an acceptable infringement, and the Supremes will not take an appeal of that ruling, because there is no forcing conflict among the circuits.

THEN, we win some other local cases elsewhere showing that egregious total bans are an infringement (like DC - cue racial heartstrings.)

Then, with that easier precedent, one can fight the AWBs in certain states, setting up AWB conflicts that force the issue on SCOTUS, which would finally clarify Miller.

I would wager that Kates and Kopel would advise against appealing those later CA losses to the USSC, since the chances of being granted cert are nil, and would create a tiny advantage for the antis in future state AWB cases, by emboldening anti judges.

Scenario:
In 20 years we will probably end up with more legal "freedom", but in a much more strict police state on gun transfers and possession. They may rule that a $200 transfer tax, background check, etc. are acceptable for ALL firearms ownership and possession, and felony prison terms for possessing a gun not so registered. But they might overrule VM 1986, making new machine guns cheap and legal again. "You can have anything you want, but we get a piece of the action, and we know where every gun is for future confiscation if we opt to do that."