[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "If they do, they'll rule an individual right as part of a Militia. I give it 50-50. It was premature to bring this issue before the U.S. Supreme Court. "

So you're convinced that the Supreme Court would be WRONG to agree with the DC Court, but the DC Court decision is not WRONG, it is just DIFFERENT?

Pray tell, given that the DC Court decision DIFFERS from your opinion to what I would term a dramatic degree, what is premature about bringing the issue before the Supreme Court? Do you mean that a future Court will agree with you but this Court will disagree? Whose Supreme Court appointments do you believe will change how such a decision will be made?

[robertpaulsen]

"So you're convinced that the Supreme Court would be WRONG to agree with the DC Court"

Geez Louise. That's why I don't answer your questions.

I said if the U.S. Supreme Court did those things I listed, then they should not agree with the DC Court. Remember? You asked me how they SHOULD rule?

what is premature about bringing the issue before the Supreme Court?"

Well, we have the 5th Circuit and the DC Circuit on our side. We'll never get the 9th Circuit, but there's talk of splitting up the 9th. Over the years, we may get piecemeal favorable gun rulings from other Circuit Courts. State gun legislation continues to grow more favorable. Public opinion about guns and self defense is changing. The U.S. Supreme Court may become more conservative.

What's the rush? Why the showdown? Things are looking better than they ever have and you want to press the U.S. Supreme Court into making a once-and-for-all ruling?

Insanity.