Part of the frustration is that you can't have much hope of success in litigation when all the rules are made by the feds, all the courts, judges and enforcement are feds as well.
And the feds have no cap limits on what they will spend to fight a case. Especially when it would set a precedent that's not in their favor, thus invoking more litigation from others.
Private citizens don't have that kind of money for litigation. They are ruined, and all is lost either way.
Absolutely...and as for Biased Judgments against Written Law... the U.S. Supreme Court does it all the Time. Using them for example of citations is truly a very poor source
Example..."Shall not be Infringed". They either cannot read Written English or they are indeed guilty of Bias.
The 2A case law is still evolving. There'd been DAMNED little 2A litigation until Heller that got to the SCOTUS. It's a process, and we're winning on that.
If you honestly think that using standing case law, the entire basis for Western legal theory and practice, is a "very poor source" for how law should be handled, then I really have to wonder exactly what theory of law you would support. Is American jurisprudence perfect? Of course not. However, there is not a better system in existence and throughout history has not been any better system developed.
