|
When I read the original complaint I knew it was going to fail. I even contacted Jensen about it but he had his own ideas. Now he's pursuing the same failed strategy on appeal. A surprise win would be nice, but as it stands with that horrible brief, I'd bet dollars to donuts that he loses.
The first problem is that he has built his primary argument as an equal-protection case...not a 2nd Amendment case. He only uses the 2nd Amendment to support the notion that the case should be reviewed under strict scrutiny. His major problem, however, is that even under strict scrutiny, the fees are permissible. Especially since he provided no evidence that the fees aren't used to cover the costs. That's why he lost at trial.
It does seem, however, the Jensen is waking up to the fact that his argument is completely invalid by the fact that he's introduced a new issue that wasn't used in the original trial...the fact that a fee on constitutionally protected activity is impermissible. This is the argument I had told him he needed to make originally.
All we could hope for is that the equal-protection argument doesn't taint his poorly-made 2nd amendment argument, and that the judges buy the 2nd-amendment argument (even though his argument still has problems.)
|