Quote:
Right now we have a clear win in Peruta. I think it would be good if the SC did not hear the case, but instead let it stand as is, with appropriate language. Let a win stay a win.
Drake is the one we want them to hear. Drake is a loss right now. Let the SC hear (overturn) a loss, not a win.
|
A) You're assuming a Peruta loss and a Drake win at the same time in your argument. If Peruta would fall at SCOTUS, so would Drake.
B) If Drake falls, Peruta would be all but nullified as well- so even if they heard Drake, and upheld our loss there, our win in Peruta is on very thin ice. Even if the window for challenging Peruta had passed and no avenue of appeal was there to re-open it, the next similar case would overturn the Peruta opinion.
C) You're forgetting one of the first and most common observations about Peruta- namely it's importance as a Circuit split. Peruta was considered/speculated (here at least) to be the nail in the coffin encapsulating SCOTUS reluctance to decide carry outside the home. With a nearly 1:1 split concerning half the country it was predicted SCOTUS wouldn't be able to leave Drake and the rest alone anymore.
Ergo: Even IF Peruta is "left as a win", it's not likely to be left alone. Leaving Peruta as a win, means Drake, and possibly Peruta and others will likely be heard. Even if it is Drake alone, the repercussions for Peruta, Moore, Woolard?, and others are still there.
I could be wrong, and if I am I'm sure one of the pros on here will point out where, but that's the gist I'm getting. IF Peruta stands, the Drake is almost assured Cert. IF Drake gets Cert, Peruta, Moore, Woolard, and other carry cases are all going to be affected by the decision. If that's the case, I want Peruta in there anyway. I want O'Scannlain's opinion with it's near plagiaristic citing and imitation of the Heller decision in front of the Court that wrote Heller.