Nice turn to the argument. But this reinforces the manner in which you could go after the additional requirements being a large number of plaintiffs and PDs. It eliminates their ability to defame one plaintiff and use that as a reason to deny the case.
As for suitability, "unprovable in a court of law but believable dirt"along with hearsay being admissible, virtually guarantees that a person that meets your requirements as a potential plaintiff that could take down suitability simply does not exist. Its a unicorn. Why not own up to it that it's just not going to happen, at least not by Comm2a. And let some other organization take the lead.
We do occasionally find unicorns. When we brought the Chardin case (use of sealed juvenile records) we had a diverse plaintiff with a gun carry charge from age 14 who had gone on to a 100% law abiding adult life, successful career, and PhD. Even with all that, we lost and were denied cert by SCOTUS. Scrivener's brief was a masterpiece, so it was not bad lawyering.
As to the non-citizen LTC case - we had an honorably discharged veteran of the UK armed forces veteran who is a US citizen plus a high profile MD who lists tumor pathology textbooks to his credit. We won that case, and were fortunate to have baggageless plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs for the MJ case were baggage free, having nothing but minor heathen devil weed convictions in their record. We won, and I am not certain the outcome would have been the same if we used EBT recipients with a string of CWOFs and expired 209As.
The Glock case had baggageless plaintiffs (lead plaintiff was retired LEO) but we lost that based on Judge Kennedy concluding "all AGs arguments accepted as fact;; all plaintiffs arguments rejected; no need for a trial or testimony; summary judgment granted in favor of AG".
An example of risk when tweaking the tiger's tail. Years ago, the nomenclature on an LTC was "reason for issuance". One court (Ipswitch) found that this was a reason, not a restriction. GOAL demanded the state clarify what reason met. It doesn't take a tactical genius to predict the outcome - the state immediately changed "reason for issuance" to "restriction" on LTCs, removing any argument a gun owner had that his/her target license covered defensive carry. A proper a-prior risk analysis would have factored in this possible outcome and perhaps led to a different decision. This is the sort of thing that can happen if we bring legally correct, but doomed, cases.
Another example - I am a former NY state resident and have been carry licensed it two different NY counties. I'm not only baggage free, but even have proof two different county judges found me suitable. So, I get *the* top gun lawyer in the country to take my case on the residency required issue. (If you have to ask who, look at the bottom of the Heller brief). Research was done, a favorable county was selected (the one I grew up in and had been licensed in from 1983 onwards until I moved to the DPRM), information was provided. Then, it was discovered a pro-se plaintiff in another county had filed a sufficiently similar case in a less favorable court on the same issue. If this tactically bad move had not been done by an amateur with an inflated opinion of his abilities, there is a decent chance we would have an NES thread with people discussing they NY licensing experience. (this was NYS except for NYC which is a separate licensing jurisdiction).
The reality of bringing winning cases is a lot more complex than simply following "you should do this". And Comm2A has no authority over other parties bringing cases, so it is not a matter of us "letting someone else take the lead". We (Comm2a) is not in charge of other orgs and plaintiffs.
We evaluate the benefits and risks of each case. If we are morally and legally right, we have to weigh our opinion of the law against what the court is likely to decide and also consider the possible consequences of an adverse decision that not only goes against but bars re-litigation based on re judicata and/or a precedent setting decision.
Who would have imagined a court would not find that bonded warehouse storage was conceptually the same as an involuntary tow? It was convoluted logic (since the police deal with the vendor, the person who pays is not the customer and has no rights that need protecting). That is the kind of thinking we are up against.
A current problem in MA is that you have a right to own a handgun in your home, but not a right to get the license allowing you to do so. Courts in NY have held that extreme fees to exercise a right are not unreasonable, so it is not bringing a case about what is right but one so narrow the court cannot dance around the issue. We generally face a direct contradiction between desired social policy (in the mind of the court) and what the law requires, so any elasticity will be used against us.
With all due respect, one's ability to offer meaningful commentary on what cases should be brought requires a background in reading actual filings and decisions of cases that have went our way, and not, to see what one can expect from MA and First Circuit federal district couts.