Did we get the wrong carry cases to SCOTUS?

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

SCOTUS will be ruling on NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and NRA v. McCraw this year if I'm correct. Both cases involve carry but are not just carry cases, they pertain to people 18-21 years old.

With a great case like Peruta v. San Diego out of California which only covers carry outside of the home it could have a much better chance of success we could be risking losing carry outside the home with NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and NRA v. McCraw because of the age component.




So, did we choose the wrong cases to go to SCOTUS, cases that have a likelihood of not succeeding and jeopardizing carry outside the home?


.

 

[danez71]

The way I see it, what ever the ruling is will only affect 18-21 yrs olds regardless.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Are you sure about that?

 

[MistWolf]

Instead of worrying if the cases coming up are the the right ones start planning for future cases

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Instead of worrying if the cases coming up are the the right ones start planning for future cases

That doesn't help this thread at all.

 

[joeschmoe]

NRA has never been good at picking and fighting court cases. SAF is much better for that.
SAF has had many important court victories. NRA... not so much.
NRA has been better at lobbying.

 

[danez71]

Are you sure about that?

Well, lets look at your OP.

Are you sure about that?

Well, lets look at your OP.

.

SCOTUS will be ruling on NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and NRA v. McCraw this year if I'm correct. Both cases involve carry but are not just carry cases, they pertain to people 18-21 years old.

With a great case like Peruta v. San Diego out of California which only covers carry outside of the home it could have a much better chance of success we could be risking losing carry outside the home with NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and NRA v. McCraw because of the age component.




So, did we choose the wrong cases to go to SCOTUS, cases that have a likelihood of not succeeding and jeopardizing carry outside the home?


.

BTW, Peruta was just ruled on favorably and it wasn't started as "only covers carry outside of the home" as you said.

It was about "self defense" not being an adequate reason to get a CCP with OC not being an option. Hence, a defacto ban.

 

[MAKster]

I believe the point the OP is making is the court ruling will likely just be on the issue of people under 21 carrying in public and not address the larger issue of people in general carrying in public. The Supreme Court usually address an issue once so they would be unlikely to immediately take up another carry case on the broader question.

 

[rodregier]

SCOTUS also picks and chooses which cases it will accept, which is another wild card in the whole escalation process regardless how well-funded a case might be.

 

[danez71]

I believe the point the OP is making is the court ruling will likely just be on the issue of people under 21 carrying in public and not address the larger issue of people in general carrying in public. The Supreme Court usually address an issue once so they would be unlikely to immediately take up another carry case on the broader question.

I'm far from the grammar police... but when I add some punctuation, I think you are right.


OP, in light of the Peruta case, I think there is less to worry about in regards to the 2 other cases you mentioned,

 

[MistWolf]

That doesn't help this thread at all.

Then you aren't thinking this through. We can't do anything about the type of cases that are before the court now but we can do something about future cases. It can take years before a case comes before the court. It may be that at the time due to the political climate, it was the best case to put forward. But we can't go in and say "We wanna trade this case for a more pertinent case", it just doesn't work that way. We can either sit around bemoaning what we cannot change, or figure out a better way to do it in the future. While the first may be a better contribution to this thread, it's a useless strategy for protecting our rights & liberties