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?

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