ghostwong
03-24-2008, 10:03 PM
from . . http://www.shootingwire.com/
What A Difference A Week Makes
This time last week, I was concerned that the entire future for firearms was up-in-the-air unless attorney Alan Gura could miraculously convince a majority of the justices in the United States Supreme Court that the Second Amendment of the Constitution was intended to be read primarily as a right of the individual and only secondarily as the authorization of militias for the common defense.
This week, I find myself having moved beyond that position. Gura’s rookie debut before the Supreme Court – appearing against a wily veteran – was decidedly a solid win on his part. Instead of having to work to convince five of the Justices that an individual right was the intent of the Amendment, Gura found himself dealing with what might be considered as secondary issues – the “what ifs” of a ruling on the behalf of the individual position.
In essence, four of the justices seemed to indicate they were in agreement with the individual interpretation. Others gave hints, but none were willing to come out unconditionally and give their positions.
They were, after all, listening to “Arguments” from both sides of a simple question: Is the District of Columbia’s ban on firearms constitutional? Theirs was not the responsibility to answer that question. There are many days of closed-door discussions and positions ahead before that question is answered by the court. At that point, we’ll know – definitively – what lies ahead for us.
In the meantime, we move from the united front to the normal infighting. Some people have told me they feel they were “sold out” by Gura when he didn’t challenge the Supreme Court Justices when they talked so often about “machine guns” being something that – like “plastic guns made to defeat detection”- was deserving of regulation.
Class Three enthusiasts – machine gun owners – say they’ve been given up as a sacrifice to the anti-gun folks in order to get other guns approved. Across the internet, they’ve taken Alan Gura to task – and they’ve used unkind language to do that.
Gura may have been a rookie before the Supreme Court, but he’s no shrinking violet. He had reasons for taking the course of action he took, and he went to the subguns discussion board to answer his critics.
While the readers might not have liked what he had to say, they had to admire the fact he wasn’t dancing around the issue. Here’s a part of his response.
“The fact is, outside the gun community, the concept of privately owned machine guns is intolerable to American society – and 100% of all federal judges. If I had suggested in any way-- including, by being evasive and indirect and fudging the answer –that machine guns are the next case and this is the path to dumping 922(o) –I’d have instantly lost all 9 justices. Even Scalia. There wasn’t any question of that, at all, going in, and it was confirmed in unmistakable fashion when I stood there a few feet from the justices and heard and saw how they related to machine guns. It was not just my opinion, but one uniformly held by ALL the attorneys with whom we bounced ideas off of, some of them exceedingly bright people. Ditto for the people who wanted me to declare an absolute right, like I’m there to wave some sort of GOA bumper sticker. That’s a good way to loose, too, and look like a moron in the process.”
Here’s where he shucks it right down to the cob for all of us:
“I didn’t make the last 219 years of constitutional law and I am not responsible for the ay that people out there – and on the court –feel about machine guns. Some people in our gun rights community have very…interesting…ways of looking at the constitution and the federal courts.
“I didn’t need to pass judgment on it other than to say, it’s not the reality in which we practice law. When we started this over five years ago, the collective rights theory was the controlling law in 47 out of 50 states. Hopefully, on next year’s MBE, aspiring lawyers will have to bubble in the individual rights answer to pass the test. I know you and many others out there can appreciate that difference and I thank you for it, even if we can’t get EVERYTHING that EVERYONE wants.
“You want to change 922 (o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for “climate change.”
He offers no apologies and explains a reality that many in the “gun world” fail to grasp: the American public sees no good reason why an average individual would want to own a machine gun.
I don’t see things that way, but I DO consider people who keep spiders, snakes, tarantulas, and scorpions as “pets” as a threat to civilization. Likewise, I think parents who hand their 15-year-old children the keys to the dad’s 150 mph BMW are just as guilty of complicity in a crime (vehicular manslaughter) as the person who makes a straw gun purchase.
We have to realize that there is one founding value the Supreme Court is always going to factor into their decisions: the right of choice in the light of the common good.
For instance, free speech is guaranteed, but yelling “fire” in a theatre is forbidden. It’s in the common good.
It seems likely, although not guaranteed, that the justices will rule in favor of the individual rights interpretation. However, that decision – even if it were 9-0 – would not wipe out any restrictions on firearms- at least not immediately. And it’s probably safe to presume that a favorable decision on Heller will leave room for “reasonable accommodations” in future laws.
It doesn’t seem reasonable or realistic to expect otherwise.
In the meantime, I suggest we all follow Alan Gura’s advice and work for “climate change”. Winning the hearts and minds of the public will be easier if they understand what we’re talking about.
--Jim Shepherd
What A Difference A Week Makes
This time last week, I was concerned that the entire future for firearms was up-in-the-air unless attorney Alan Gura could miraculously convince a majority of the justices in the United States Supreme Court that the Second Amendment of the Constitution was intended to be read primarily as a right of the individual and only secondarily as the authorization of militias for the common defense.
This week, I find myself having moved beyond that position. Gura’s rookie debut before the Supreme Court – appearing against a wily veteran – was decidedly a solid win on his part. Instead of having to work to convince five of the Justices that an individual right was the intent of the Amendment, Gura found himself dealing with what might be considered as secondary issues – the “what ifs” of a ruling on the behalf of the individual position.
In essence, four of the justices seemed to indicate they were in agreement with the individual interpretation. Others gave hints, but none were willing to come out unconditionally and give their positions.
They were, after all, listening to “Arguments” from both sides of a simple question: Is the District of Columbia’s ban on firearms constitutional? Theirs was not the responsibility to answer that question. There are many days of closed-door discussions and positions ahead before that question is answered by the court. At that point, we’ll know – definitively – what lies ahead for us.
In the meantime, we move from the united front to the normal infighting. Some people have told me they feel they were “sold out” by Gura when he didn’t challenge the Supreme Court Justices when they talked so often about “machine guns” being something that – like “plastic guns made to defeat detection”- was deserving of regulation.
Class Three enthusiasts – machine gun owners – say they’ve been given up as a sacrifice to the anti-gun folks in order to get other guns approved. Across the internet, they’ve taken Alan Gura to task – and they’ve used unkind language to do that.
Gura may have been a rookie before the Supreme Court, but he’s no shrinking violet. He had reasons for taking the course of action he took, and he went to the subguns discussion board to answer his critics.
While the readers might not have liked what he had to say, they had to admire the fact he wasn’t dancing around the issue. Here’s a part of his response.
“The fact is, outside the gun community, the concept of privately owned machine guns is intolerable to American society – and 100% of all federal judges. If I had suggested in any way-- including, by being evasive and indirect and fudging the answer –that machine guns are the next case and this is the path to dumping 922(o) –I’d have instantly lost all 9 justices. Even Scalia. There wasn’t any question of that, at all, going in, and it was confirmed in unmistakable fashion when I stood there a few feet from the justices and heard and saw how they related to machine guns. It was not just my opinion, but one uniformly held by ALL the attorneys with whom we bounced ideas off of, some of them exceedingly bright people. Ditto for the people who wanted me to declare an absolute right, like I’m there to wave some sort of GOA bumper sticker. That’s a good way to loose, too, and look like a moron in the process.”
Here’s where he shucks it right down to the cob for all of us:
“I didn’t make the last 219 years of constitutional law and I am not responsible for the ay that people out there – and on the court –feel about machine guns. Some people in our gun rights community have very…interesting…ways of looking at the constitution and the federal courts.
“I didn’t need to pass judgment on it other than to say, it’s not the reality in which we practice law. When we started this over five years ago, the collective rights theory was the controlling law in 47 out of 50 states. Hopefully, on next year’s MBE, aspiring lawyers will have to bubble in the individual rights answer to pass the test. I know you and many others out there can appreciate that difference and I thank you for it, even if we can’t get EVERYTHING that EVERYONE wants.
“You want to change 922 (o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for “climate change.”
He offers no apologies and explains a reality that many in the “gun world” fail to grasp: the American public sees no good reason why an average individual would want to own a machine gun.
I don’t see things that way, but I DO consider people who keep spiders, snakes, tarantulas, and scorpions as “pets” as a threat to civilization. Likewise, I think parents who hand their 15-year-old children the keys to the dad’s 150 mph BMW are just as guilty of complicity in a crime (vehicular manslaughter) as the person who makes a straw gun purchase.
We have to realize that there is one founding value the Supreme Court is always going to factor into their decisions: the right of choice in the light of the common good.
For instance, free speech is guaranteed, but yelling “fire” in a theatre is forbidden. It’s in the common good.
It seems likely, although not guaranteed, that the justices will rule in favor of the individual rights interpretation. However, that decision – even if it were 9-0 – would not wipe out any restrictions on firearms- at least not immediately. And it’s probably safe to presume that a favorable decision on Heller will leave room for “reasonable accommodations” in future laws.
It doesn’t seem reasonable or realistic to expect otherwise.
In the meantime, I suggest we all follow Alan Gura’s advice and work for “climate change”. Winning the hearts and minds of the public will be easier if they understand what we’re talking about.
--Jim Shepherd