There are nearly 20 individual legal arguments, each one absolutely brilliant and rock-solid impenetrable in and of itself, all being combined into one super case on steroids to repeal the Hughes Amendment. For tactical reasons, I can’t go into what the arguments are, but rest assured, each and every one is absolutely devastating to the governments’ case for keeping the ban in place. [More]Whenever anyone says "rest assured," my first reaction is to look around nervously for what I missed, and maybe see if I still have my wallet.
Just because an argument is brilliant, rock solid and impenetrable doesn't mean it won't be ignored, bypassed, overruled, deemed inadmissible...
At this point it should be obvious this isn't about what is right, it's about who has power.
Here's what I said back in 2005:
[I]f they accept either Seegars or Parker, I believe the court will not dare say there is no individual rkba. But if they find there is one, it will be so heavily burdened with "reasonable restrictions" as to ensure the status quo. They'll never admit the truth unless someone, that would be us, has enough power to compel them.Was I wrong?
I'd love to see the Hughes Amendment repealed. And I don't want to be a naysayer and discourage an effort I admittedly know nothing about by people I will presume to be patriotic and sincere.
That said, the road to hellish precedent is paved with good intentions. I need to know much more about the "tactical reasons" and who is behind this, and so do you. And in fairness, so does anyone kneejerk criticizing and dismissing it.