Reason Interviews Alan Gura

[hoffmang]

Reason has an excellent interview of Alan Gura online and it features a lot of the CGF cases.

I've excerpted the first half below:
The article continues with analysis of Incorporation.

-Gene

[CHS]

Good stuff. I like to see interviews that are just that: Interviews. Not some way for the interviewer to interject some kind of agenda, but to ask questions and present the answers in a fair and unbiased way, free from creative editing.

[Shotgun Man]

I wish there was some discussion on whether Nordyke was going to go en banc.

Good article.

[bwiese]

I'm litigating another case in D.C., on an obscure provision of federal law that prevents expatriate Americans from acquiring guns in the U.S. The grounds of the challenge are the Second Amendment, and also the right to travel. American citizens are allowed to keep the guns they acquired prior to leaving the U.S. and setting up residence elsewhere. But if you have residence overseas, for some reason the government restricts access to firearms when visiting the U.S. That doesn't make sense.

Closely-related derivative that will be assisted by this.... why can't I, as a Californian, buy a gun in Nebraska?

Let's avoid handwaving and add these restrictions to avoid clutter: assume I come back clear on Neb's use of FBI instant check, and for sake of argument I will retain the gun in Neb. and not bring it back to CA (or would be bringing back a gun that's legal in CA).

Why can the Feds assert my residency state has sway over my fundamental, enumerated right when I'm in another state and the transaction does not involve my residency state?

[Legasat]

Good Read...Thanks

[ChrisSig]

Thanks for posting this. Good to have Gura on our side.

[Nodda Duma]

[/I]

Closely-related derivative that will be assisted by this.... why can't I, as a Californian, buy a gun in Nebraska?

Let's avoid handwaving and add these restrictions to avoid clutter: assume I come back clear on Neb's use of FBI instant check, and for sake of argument I will retain the gun in Neb. and not bring it back to CA (or would be bringing back a gun that's legal in CA).

Why can the Feds assert my residency state has sway over my fundamental, enumerated right when I'm in another state and the transaction does not involve my residency state?

That stems from the GCA of 1968, correct? I wonder what the reasoning was behind adding that restriction (same question as yours, albeit worded differently).

-Jason

[CHS]

Why can the Feds assert my residency state has sway over my fundamental, enumerated right when I'm in another state and the transaction does not involve my residency state?

In my opinion, this will be the most interesting post-Heller case. It's also the one that has gotten the least amount of air, but the one I'm most curious about following.

There is absolutely no legal or logical reason to prevent me from purchasing a firearm in ANY state regardless of my residency state. Similarly, if I should visit a state that has not closed the dreaded "loop hole" there is no legal or logical reason to prevent me from buying a firearm face to face from someone who's interested in my money.

[hoffmang]

That stems from the GCA of 1968, correct? I wonder what the reasoning was behind adding that restriction (same question as yours, albeit worded differently).

-Jason

If you click through, you'll see it was added in 1994 for no reason that anyone can really find. My personal speculation is that it was added at the behest of LCAV to make the California restrictions function more completely.

-Gene

[CHS]

If you click through, you'll see it was added in 1994 for no reason that anyone can really find.

You know what this means?

ANOTHER new 4473 in a couple years that we're all gonna have to get used to. Think it'll still be yellow, or maybe they'll use a nice baby blue this time?

[TheBundo]

The last paragraph in the full article, in the link, says it all:

Besides relying on those 19th-century precedents to claim the Second Amendment doesn't apply to them, the defendants made a host of arguments that basically were ignoring Heller. It's like they just didn't believe Heller really came out the way it did and is the law of the land. They are in complete denial of that opinion, all their arguments are contradicted by something in Heller. I understand they don't like it and disagree with it and it's their right to do so. But they need to accept it is the decision of the Supreme Court. They are not required to like it, but they are required to obey it.