Quote Originally Posted by foxtrot View Post
I'll have to review the opinion when I get a chance and provide another take (from someone litigating there as well). Haven't read it, haven't watched the videos or analyzed all the BS flying. I can tell you flat out we do not want anything being reviewed by the Co Supreme Court. Look at the makeup sometime. Only certain questions would be redirected to the CO Supreme Court anyway. I have not seen Independence Institute take any action other than to prosecute this suit.

Also, I didn't see Dudley on this action last time I checked. Dudley was on the Post Office case which imho was a very stupid move. Trying to challenge every regulation is not beneficial when you understand how precedence works. Courts carefully craft it to support whatever good-fuzzy feeling they want at the given time. They are never going to have a good-fuzzy feeling about having random strangers with guns in their courtroom, and they can see a logical connection between precedence regarding a post-office and a courtroom. So... they carefully craft an opinion to do what they want, and that precedence gets perverted to deny clearer, more important issues. RMGO needs to pick and choose its positions to have the best possibility of winning every case. It also shouldn't be stealing credit and shit talking perhaps more altruistic organizations.
RMGO was the lead plaintiff in the magazine ban lawsuit mentioned above. RMGO paid the attorney fees of the attorney, Barry Arrington. The caption of the suit is RMGO v. Hickenlooper. The suit was brought for a specific purpose, to try to get life back into the State Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, which was eviscerated in the Robertson v. Denver decision about 20 years ago.

The Post Office lawsuit was first brought in 2010. It was instigated and funded by RMGO, although the attorneys at Mountain States Legal Foundation, who did the work greatly helped out by not charging anything close to full price for the work. Fresh after the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions it looked like the courts might recognize a right to bear arms for self protection. The government interest in keeping guns out of their public, unsecured buildings and parking lots was very attenuated. Unfortunately the lower courts have basically ignored the Heller and McDonald decisions, and the Supreme Court has tolerated that. I don't think that was foreseeable in 2010. In terms of Postal carry, the upshot of the lawsuit is that the rules in place in 2010 continue to be in place. They can be overturned by a new administration, or by Congress.