Is Pullman abstention appropriate where abstaining has a chilling effect on the exercise of a natural, fundamental, constitutionally protected right?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Contrary to this Court’s precedent, the courts below exercised Pullman abstention, delaying adjudication of constitutional questions despite the challenged laws’ chilling effect on the exercise of a natural, fundamental right. In so doing, both courts relegated consideration of abstention’s effect on Petitioners’ Second Amendment protected rights to a discretionary afterthought, rather than the threshold inquiry as conducted by this Court. Further, neither court considered the effect of Petitioners’ damages claims on the Pullman inquiry; namely, that regardless of the resolution of the state law questions, a federal court must evaluate the federal constitutional issues in order to evaluate Petitioners’ damages claims properly sought against a municipality under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Finally, the lower courts did not employ a surgical, issue-by-issue Pullman abstention analysis as mandated by this Court, instead opting for an all or nothing approach. As such, the questions presented to this Court are: 1) Is Pullman abstention appropriate where abstaining has a chilling effect on the exercise of a natural, fundamental, constitutionally protected right? 2) Is Pullman abstention appropriate in a case involving damages when there is no possibility of limiting the constitutional questions put before a federal district court? 3) Did the lower courts err in failing to appropriately and adequately analyze Pullman abstention on an issue-by-issue basis, as mandated by this Court?