I don't want to. I want someone else to incorporate two arguments into their briefs that I foresee will be critical down the road. Much "bad law" has resulted from pursuing strategies that might have seemed good for the immediate case, but were disastrous in the long run. In game theory it is called the "local optimum" or "hill-climbing" problem. You can help by pointing me to a group willing to include these arguments.
Joseph E. Olson wrote: > Jon, don't do this. The more briefs the LESS attention the Court will > give them. It's not a race for "15 seconds of fame." Heller's lead > attorney is coordinating the 8 or 10 amicus briefs that are needed. > Don't shove another one up his ... . > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
