Quote:
|
It takes forever for the people to accrue gun rights via litigation.
|
The litigation route is time consuming; but the gains are more pemanent. It is much more difficult to overturn a 5-4 decision like Roe v. Wade than it is to simply pass and write a new law. Of course the flipside of that is we could start a promising case with a bad law now and by the time it gets to SCOTUS, who knows what Justices will be on the Court? There were two new Justices added to the Court from the time Parker/Heller started to the time it was heard.
My big concern is that the worst laws, the most infringing, are the ones that provide the best potential for good precedent for us - and because they are low-hanging fruit, they are often the same laws that the legislature tries to change before the lawsuit can run its course.
And a further issue is I am not seeing a lot of coordination between SAF and NRA on this issue. It seems NRA feels a lot more comfortable pursuing legislative solutions (which is historically their strongpoint) and SAF is more comfortable with litigation (which is historically an area where they have dramatically outperformed the NRA). Unless the two get together and work out which issues are going to fall into which sphere, that is going to be a source of future conflict, especially with the various right-to-carry laws proposed in Congress and the broad range of carry cases in litigation right now.