[Redbob]

"Chuck Michel, a lawyer for the NRA and spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said the decision was "foreseeable as it was avoidable. " He said he didn't support the challenge to the ban based on the Second Amendment grounds because the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had already made its position clear in past rulings."

My questions are, Is this NRA guy stupid, silly, or was he just quoted out of context?
KNOWING that the 9th Circuit is going to rule against you doesn't change the fact that, in order to get to the Supreme Court, cases originating in California must go through the 9th Circuit appeals step.

Or was Chuckie really saying the NRA is AFRAID of a Supreme Court ruling?
Myself, I want them to rule even if they rule against the Second Amendment - so I'll know for sure what needs to be done next.

[Frohickey]

Part of me says that the NRA-ILA is afraid of any Second Amendment case because it could finally be settled that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. If that happens, then the $millions that the NRA-ILA receives would evaporate.

Me, I say, bring it on! Give me a definitive answer to whether the Second Amendment is an individual right or not.