I feel for him, I 100% agree with him, and I dream of a day when he can win this case.
But that being said, I wish he'd stop and confer with Alan Gura's team, and see when is the right time.
Yup.
The NRA is interested in little victory-snacks of legislation that create an increasingly complicated nest of laws. Each additional law added, be it pro- or anti-gun, is one more support line to justify the existence of the NRA in their mailings and continued operation as they monitor 2A related happenings.
Judicial precedent that repeals laws, also repeals power for the NRA.
Gura has done more for the 2A in the last 5 years than the NRA has done in 25.
Gura gambled it all on a 4th quarter 2 minute warning Hail Mary pass. In hindsight it's great, because he/we/NRA won.
However, that does not invalidate the NRA's concerns over losing. And keep in mind that as a 5/4 decision, there are already noises by the other side that that makes it not as strong a decision. No conspiracy on the part of the NRA to keep mailing us fund-raising letters needed.
Even with a Heller slam-dunk, there is more than enough gun/RKBA issues to keep the NRA busy for decades to come.
IANAL, but one dangerous thing I saw in there is he is claiming that the national guard is a militia (which it is, in fact it is what the anti's want to have be the only militia and invalidate the 2nd amendment). I'm concerned that if he won the wording could be done to affirm that and potentially screw over the folks not in a "militia".
Should I be tin foil hatting this comment?
That's the very first thing that made me uneasy about his case as well.
He's arguing to reverse the original meaning of Militia by focusing on an organized Militia, which would tend to dilute the unorganized Militia (the citizenry at large). IMO if the lower standard, the unorganized militia is vested with full 2nd amendment protections, then by default any organized one is as well.