[exceltoexcel]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

How very odd.

I wish you luck in your endeavor. Not sure how I've changed that "tune", I expect that the criminal ordinance will fail, the park rule will likely stand, and I give that assessment as an honest opinion, even with Heller intervening since 2006.

Perhaps you misunderstand the role of a lawyer. When I'm your advocate, I'll zealously argue your case to the opposing parties, to the courts, to the newspapers if it comes to that; and I'll emphasize the best points while trying to dismiss any contrary authority. But long before that, when we discuss the strengths and weaknesses in your proposed case, I would be a used car salesman with a JD if I tried to "sell" you that we had a case. Not my job, not even as a PA resident who likes to travel armed everywhere except court. My job is to tell the truth as I see it, and the truth is that this is NOT a slam-dunk case of preemption violation, it could go either way, and probably against us on the park policy issue. Probably for us on the criminal ordinance.

Few plaintiffs (or willing defendants, in this case) enter into a case expecting to lose. About half of them are wrong, and so are their lawyers, if they said they had a guaranteed winner. In this case, I hope that the courts see it your way, that would be terrific.

I don't think my reputation here hangs on the outcome of a case that cuts new ground, before a court with human judges who rule based on personal prejudices tempered by the statutes and cases. I've covered a lot of ground, most of it not in reliance on predicting future rulings. I've always said that every case is a crapshoot, that's why most cases settle.

Honestly, good luck, a favorable ruling would have broad repercussions.

Thanks, I guess? The official attitude is a max 60% loss for magistrate a 99% win in appeal a 100% win for the big court and civil suit, that is (SCOPA) when money would turn to donations for sure..