No. I'm saying that Garland is a better bet than anyone Secretary Clinton will nominate. Which is exactly what I said before.

If you want to wait, wait. Wait for President Clinton's replacement for Garland.

There's going to be nine. And we had a chance to have Garland.

Garland is already on record as opposing individual rights to bear arms under 2A and being ok with 100% total bans of all firearms. How could anyone be worse than that?

There are also indications that Clinton will re-nominate Garland!

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/h ... ion-226967
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-c ... SKCN10M1WD
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... s-control/

Update: Peruta certiorari voting this week.
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/04/peruta ... led-carry/

Alito and Thomas have previously voted for cert for 2A cases since Heller, however, we still need Kennedy or Roberts to join them or one of them and Gorsuch.

It appears the Peruta cert/no cert discussion has been postponed (again). So far I haven't seen a new date posted anywhere. The last postponement was 2 weeks, the one before that was 1 week. Source -- http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/

I get the earlier ones, we had a 4-4 deadlock and it would have been horrible to start hearing the case before Gorsuch was seated as he could not have jumped-in mid-case.

4/12/2017 Court Rescheduled.
4/10/2017 Court DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
3/30/2017 Court Rescheduled.
3/27/2017 Court DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
3/23/2017 Court Rescheduled.
3/8/2017 Court DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.

However not sure why the delay on 4-12?

Udpate June 26th: Peruta has been denied cert by SCOTUS. Link to the court's blog -- http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/peruta-v-california/

The dissent was written by two justices, one of them being Gorsuch.

And another link with more detail -- http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2017/06/scotus-denies-cert-in-peruta-case.html

SInce WA is under the 9th, and they weren't overturned, this crap is going to filter north.

Millions of dollars went into this case, and probably billions of forum posts! In CA, in most places you can't get a permit and you can't open carry. I don't get how that isn't denial of the right, which has been affirmed.

^^^ That right there.

Both dissenting judges (Thomas and Gorsuch) wrote very cogent statements about why denying cert is BS. There is speculation that other cases are in the pipeline that would be more compelling and hopes are now riding on one of those being "the" case that brings CA back in line. We'll see how many years it takes for any of that to happen, and how much horsefuckery WA tries to bring about in the meantime.

Unlike CA, WA has it's own "2A" in the form of Section 1, Art 24. Since WA Constitution recognized the right to carry for Self Defense there was no need for all the BS brought up by anti's who thought it was strictly a Militia right.

Since all WA Citizens have the right to carry, it's either concealed with a permit or open without. Hard for the State to get around that.

Now if the Police and courts could just figure out a way to take the firearms out of the hands of criminals. Police need to arrest more and the Courts need to give them some meaningful sentences. Those here illegally should be put on a plane and "dropped off" in the Country of origin. (landing of plane optional).

The good news from this is that we have a good idea that Gorsuch is pro-2a.

The bad news is Roberts and Alito and/or Kennedy betrayed us again. We need Kennedy to retire. Also bad news is that given CA, HI and New England states, 25% of the US population has no ability to carry a gun outside the home.

Going forward we may get some traction from the National reciprocity act, but having Congress pass that vs SCOTUS ruling on it is not good, unless THAT law will provoke a favorable SCOTUS ruling.

In terms of WA don't get comfortable just with Article 1 Section 24 of the state constitution. Why? Because we have a state supreme court that is bought and paid for by rabid lib organizations, and in several cases the court has demonstrated a willingness to ignore the state constitution or make up sections of it whole-cloth. McCleary and the Charter Schools cases proved that. Also, the "Trump proof Seattle" group pushing the income tax has also said they expect our current liberal court to ignore the last century of precedents and ignore the state constitution language on taxes. Why wouldn't the lib court ignore Section 24?

What is this pervasive 'self defense' business? 2A has nothing to do with self defense.

The Founding Fathers could never fathom the depths of modern stupidity to spell out the patently obvious. For example 2A is about taking up arms against tyrrany ... they never imagined anyone would deny self defense when armed opposition to tyranny was in play. So obvious no need to even mention it ... kind of like breathing is obvious.

If SCOTUS can't assert and affirm what is plainly written then what is the logical outcome?

Civil war.

+1.
I am amazed by this. Genuinely.

This fight is not for us geezers to carry on a hobby. This is for our children, grandchildren et al to LEGALLY exercise their Natural Right to self defense.
The Natural Right cannot be taken away... The Natural Rights extend down to the tiniest living thing with no brain.
The argument against humans' legal right to keep and carry (have at home and in public) weapons is made out of a distrust of human nature and desire to impose a control upon others.
We are not slaves or servants to the people who we have hired to represent us in .Gov.
I also distrust human nature. It is exactly for this reason that I fully support EVERY person in the RKBA except those presently incarcerated and being protected from harm by We The People in the form of the state.
The portion of human nature that I trust the least is that hunger to control other people under the guise of keeping us safe.

I have heard it repeated many times that .Gov's primary function is to keep us citizens safe.
BULLSHIT!
The primary function of .Gov should be to maintain the Liberty from Tyranny and protection of our RIGHTS.
Do not promise to keep me safe by infringing my RIGHTS. Most especially don't affect my children and grandchildren et al.

So I am not the only one with this same conclusion.

Actually it makes me feel better that I am not alone.

The bought and paid for Washington State SC only cares how to manipulate the State Constitution for the political wishes of the Seattle Leftists.

There is no hope for sound legal reasoning from this group of absolute clowns.