Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

[Sebastian]

You can find Alan Gura's response to all this unwarranted armchair quarterbacking here.

My response to GOA's press release is here.

The machine gun issue would have lost the case if it had not been dodged. I have talked to more than a few people involved in this case, and they all agree there's no consensus on the Supreme Court, or in the rest of the federal court system, to recognize a right to possess a machine gun. Gura had to come up with a means of severing that issue from his case in order to win on the individual rights argument. Roberts is famous for issuing narrow rulings, and there's a good chance the majority opinion will not address these other issues.

We're going to have to seek redress on the machine gun issue through the political system. It sucks, but that's the way it's going to be. And before you'll be able to do that, you have to change minds. That's hard, but that's life.

[exceltoexcel]

In my opinion, the individual rights will not be addressed but rather that banning "reasonable" firearm ownership is an unreasonable infringement.

Of course implied would be that it is an individuals right because if it wasn't then it wouldn't be infringing on anyone's rights...

So... The true ruling would be that it is an individuals right and that states cannot ban handguns and rifles or demand them to be locked or otherwise inaccessible..

[billamj]

Originally Posted by exceltoexcel

In my opinion, the individual rights will not be addressed but rather that banning "reasonable" firearm ownership is an unreasonable infringement.

Of course implied would be that it is an individuals right because if it wasn't then it wouldn't be infringing on anyone's rights...

So... The true ruling would be that it is an individuals right and that states cannot ban handguns and rifles or demand them to be locked or otherwise inaccessible..

Your lips to God's ears. We can certainly hope that it goes that way.

[exceltoexcel]

I'd bet nearly everything I own on it. Individual right will be implied. "Reasonable" restrictions allowed. Arms and Shall not be infringed ignored...

Now... I wouldn't have even thought about backing off of the machine gun thing but I would've changed the subject quite quickly.

Something like...

They can be banned legally, but we have been lazy, rather than banning it correctly we passed unconstitutional laws! To ban machine guns or allow their regulation we only need to amend the constitution. A proper finding of all arms carried by anyone at anytime will set the legislative bodies into quick action to resolve the true issue. A new constitutional amendment that brings the country to compromise. All the states and legislators of this great country can agree that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that are intended to cause serious injury and/or death, especially on a large scale, should not be allowed in the hands of citizens. If the vast majority agree in banning or regulating flame throwers, hand grenades then we as a country would have that. This goes as well for machine guns. However, we would then all have to agree to the individuals right to own semi-automatic weapons and to allow at least some provision for the carrying of firearms. This new amendment would end the confusion and bickering of both sides and set the rules in stone unless and until we as a country felt that it was necessary to revisit the constitution again. This court plays an intricate role in correcting our lazy approach to "reasonable" gun control.. By a clear ruling, not on what the country wants or needs but on the 2nd amendment itself as it was written, we should finally see that legislative bodies of this country, and the states rise up to give the people a constitutional amendment that we can all agree upon. A narrow and avoiding ruling will only prolong the distrust and hate of both sides, dividing the country on an issue that should be resolved here and now...

[Sebastian]

Originally Posted by exceltoexcel

I'd bet nearly everything I own on it. Individual right will be implied. "Reasonable" restrictions allowed. Arms and Shall not be infringed ignored...

Now... I wouldn't have even thought about backing off of the machine gun thing but I would've changed the subject quite quickly.

Something like...

They can be banned legally, but we have been lazy, rather than banning it correctly we passed unconstitutional laws! To ban machine guns or allow their regulation we only need to amend the constitution. A proper finding of all arms carried by anyone at anytime will set the legislative bodies into quick action to resolve the true issue. A new constitutional amendment that brings the country to compromise. All the states and legislators of this great country can agree that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that are intended to cause serious injury and/or death, especially on a large scale, should not be allowed in the hands of citizens. If the vast majority agree in banning or regulating flame throwers, hand grenades then we as a country would have that. This goes as well for machine guns. However, we would then all have to agree to the individuals right to own semi-automatic weapons and to allow at least some provision for the carrying of firearms. This new amendment would end the confusion and bickering of both sides and set the rules in stone unless and until we as a country felt that it was necessary to revisit the constitution again. This court plays an intricate role in correcting our lazy approach to "reasonable" gun control.. By a clear ruling, not on what the country wants or needs but on the 2nd amendment itself as it was written, we should finally see that legislative bodies of this country, and the states rise up to give the people a constitutional amendment that we can all agree upon. A narrow and avoiding ruling will only prolong the distrust and hate of both sides, dividing the country on an issue that should be resolved here and now...

The podium the attorneys for each side argue from aren't soap boxes. You make your case, the justices ask questions, and you answer them. You can try to retreat and dodge, but it's their courtroom, and you better be prepared to answer their questions. If you made the argument before the court that machine guns would be protected, when that's not even the issue before the court, there's a good chance you lose your majority. Once it becomes apparent justice Kennedy is on board with you, you can play it conservative. Don't say anything that could risk losing the majority.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by exceltoexcel

I'd bet nearly everything I own on it. Individual right will be implied. "Reasonable" restrictions allowed. Arms and Shall not be infringed ignored...

Now... I wouldn't have even thought about backing off of the machine gun thing but I would've changed the subject quite quickly.

Something like...

They can be banned legally, but we have been lazy, rather than banning it correctly we passed unconstitutional laws! To ban machine guns or allow their regulation we only need to amend the constitution. A proper finding of all arms carried by anyone at anytime will set the legislative bodies into quick action to resolve the true issue. A new constitutional amendment that brings the country to compromise. All the states and legislators of this great country can agree that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that are intended to cause serious injury and/or death, especially on a large scale, should not be allowed in the hands of citizens. If the vast majority agree in banning or regulating flame throwers, hand grenades then we as a country would have that. This goes as well for machine guns. However, we would then all have to agree to the individuals right to own semi-automatic weapons and to allow at least some provision for the carrying of firearms. This new amendment would end the confusion and bickering of both sides and set the rules in stone unless and until we as a country felt that it was necessary to revisit the constitution again. This court plays an intricate role in correcting our lazy approach to "reasonable" gun control.. By a clear ruling, not on what the country wants or needs but on the 2nd amendment itself as it was written, we should finally see that legislative bodies of this country, and the states rise up to give the people a constitutional amendment that we can all agree upon. A narrow and avoiding ruling will only prolong the distrust and hate of both sides, dividing the country on an issue that should be resolved here and now...

W..W..W..WHAT??!! With that response, you could have saved a few breaths and just simply said, "I'm sorry I brought this case up your honors, please reverse the low courts decision, thank you..sorry..". I won't pick that statement apart as it was hypothetical, but if your intent was not to back off, but to respond and change the subject, maybe something like," No your honor, I believe 'shall not be infringed' means exactly what it says. And that is what this case is about, DC infringing on it's citizens right to keep and bear arms. Their restrictions have made it virtually impossible to own any gun for any reason and the lower court was right to strike it down as unconstitutional. We have great faith that your honors will uphold that decision.....".

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by Sebastian

You can find Alan Gura's response to all this unwarranted armchair quarterbacking here.

I re-read the transcripts again after seeing Sebastian's post, and I want to retract the following statement I made in an earlier post:

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

it seems that things headed south for Gura as soon as he brought up that machine guns are standard military issue and should be protected.

What I stated above was NOT what Gura did; in fact, he did the exact opposite and said that machine guns can be regulated because they are "not appropriate for civilian use" (p59, line 4). While I hate that he had to go this route, I have to agree with and respect his decision. We can't expect the court to rule for an invidividual right AND challenge Miller at the same time. And while he was given an opportunity by Justice Ginsberg to say that machine guns (p60, line 3) should be protected as they are in standard military issue, I think to reverse himself at that point would've been a bad idea. I still believe his argument was too conciliatory, especially towards the end, but on the issue above I have to agree.

With that said, I do take issue to some extent with the following statements:

Originally Posted by Alan Gura

You want to change 922(o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for “climate change.”

Originally Posted by Sebastian

He’s right. You have to sway public opinion if you want traction on that issue.

While I agree that "climate change" would definitely help our cause with respect to regulated items, it shouldn't be assumed that this is necessary. The Constitution is supposed to protect our rights regardless of the "climate". If the climate were that important to the protection of rights, then Plessy v Ferguson would never have been overturned in Brown v Board of Ed. A large portion of the country at that time had hostile, or at least ambivalent, beliefs with respect to the issue brought before the Court, yet the argument they presented resulted in a unanimous ruling.

We shouldn't need to be popular, or hold the majority, to have our rights protected; that's a founding principle of our government.

[Sebastian]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

... We shouldn't need to be popular, or hold the majority, to have our rights protected; that's a founding principle of our government.

I don't disagree, and I would love a definition of the second amendment that included machine guns. But the courts are going to place boundaries on that right, like they do with all others. As Gura mentioned, the federal courts, along with most of the population, are significantly opposed to the idea that the second amendment protects someone's right to own a machine gun. The courts are going to draw some line at which an arm is considered unprotected, and Gura suggests they are going to draw it at machine guns. Sucks, but what else are you gonna do?

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

We shouldn't need to be popular, or hold the majority, to have our rights protected; that's a founding principle of our government.

exactly. gura did what he needed to and should have done to win this case for his client...and, if he does win, it is a big step forward for gun rights.

but, the problem is not gura. the problem is the supreme court.

they have abandoned their post...not only on the issue of the 2nd amendment, but in many cases since at least the time of FDR.

they are supposed to read the consitution and make the rest of the government abide by it...regardless of whether or not that is the popular opinion...and also even if the decision *appears* to go against the best (short-term) interests of our country. (the truth, of course, is that what is in the best long-term interest of our country is always, always, always, to uphold the consitution...regardless of the short-term ramifications--which are, frankly, often figments of the imaginations of the ignorant and often brainwashed masses anyway)

that is all the supreme court is suppose to do. they are the enforcers of the constitution. if they do not do that, there is no one else to do it. they have the most important job in our government, and they are failing miserably to perform it.

but, given that environment, gura did what he needed to do.

[Sebastian]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

but, the problem is not gura. the problem is the supreme court.

As I said on the blog a few days ago: We need to do everything we can to make sure Hillary and Obama don't end up picking the next two, possibly the next four justices on the Supreme Court. Stevens is 88, Ginsburg is 75, and Scalia and Kennedy are pushing 72. Maybe Scalia and Kennedy can hold out another eight years, but maybe not. Also not a guarantee that in 8 years we'll have someone in the White House who's pro-gun.

McCain has his issues, but he'll probably put conservatives on The Court, and that's going to be critical in moving this issue to the next step.