docwatson
Regular Member
imported post
Ama, the way you write reminds me of someone...
You dont' practice law by any chance?
Ama, the way you write reminds me of someone...
You dont' practice law by any chance?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
My letter to Gura and his response
- Thread starter docwatson
- Start date
sjhipple
Regular Member
imported post
docwatson wrote:
docwatson wrote:
Lol, no I don't. Who do I remind you of?Ama, the way you write reminds me of someone...
You dont' practice law by any chance?
sjhipple
Regular Member
imported post
You are all honorable men (and women) and far be it from me to say I don't understand someone who wishes to stand on principle. For that reason, I don't think I'll argue about this anymore. No good can really come of it.
You all know my position:demanding wheat bread andthrowing away rye bread when both would give you the same nourishmentis a good way to starve to death. And bread is awful sweet when you haven't had any for 219 years.
You are all honorable men (and women) and far be it from me to say I don't understand someone who wishes to stand on principle. For that reason, I don't think I'll argue about this anymore. No good can really come of it.
You all know my position:demanding wheat bread andthrowing away rye bread when both would give you the same nourishmentis a good way to starve to death. And bread is awful sweet when you haven't had any for 219 years.
Toymaker
Regular Member
imported post
ama-gi wrote:
ama-gi wrote:
Believe it or not I honestly think that he'll do much better the next time around. It's the curse of being the pointman in anything.........constructive criticism.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Guys - the main effort of this case was to affirm the lower court's opinion as consistent with existing S. Ct. precedent, including Miller, which appeared to say that uncommon and unusual weapons like machine guns and short barrelled shotguns are NOT protected by the Second Amendment.
The law tends to move in small increments. If Heller results in a clear S. Ct. affirmation for the Second Amendment securing an individual right to keep functional garden variety guns at home, that is not just a victory, but arguably the maximum victory possible under the facts of the case and legal docrines relating to facial challenges to a criminal statute.
Now, I suspect that buried in Heller will be some dicta suggestingnew tests that might someday be applied by lower courts percolating gun rights questions over a period of years, and decades. But such tests are not required it seems to me in Heller - the Court appears ready to sweep aside broad gun bans without even resulting in application of a scrutiny test crafted forthe Second Amendment.
Guys - the main effort of this case was to affirm the lower court's opinion as consistent with existing S. Ct. precedent, including Miller, which appeared to say that uncommon and unusual weapons like machine guns and short barrelled shotguns are NOT protected by the Second Amendment.
The law tends to move in small increments. If Heller results in a clear S. Ct. affirmation for the Second Amendment securing an individual right to keep functional garden variety guns at home, that is not just a victory, but arguably the maximum victory possible under the facts of the case and legal docrines relating to facial challenges to a criminal statute.
Now, I suspect that buried in Heller will be some dicta suggestingnew tests that might someday be applied by lower courts percolating gun rights questions over a period of years, and decades. But such tests are not required it seems to me in Heller - the Court appears ready to sweep aside broad gun bans without even resulting in application of a scrutiny test crafted forthe Second Amendment.
OBXMIKE
Regular Member
imported post
I also cringed when I heard/read some of the transcripts and the ensuing discussions that resulted on several gun sites. What we have to keep focus on is this:
He is trying to eat the proverbial elephant.
The only way to do it is.....one bite at a time.
Our rights have been eroded over a rather long period of time, and unfortunately, they will not become restored in part or in whole overnight and with one case in front of the SCOTUS. We still have a tremendous number of people out there,with the power of the vote, that are rabidly anti 2A. Their attitudes and predispositions on the issue will not easily changed, SCOTUS ruling or no.
We all need to pick up a fork and help Gura eat this elephant, not skewer him with it!
I just e-mailed him with an offer to spend my annual NRA dues as a donation to the cause, and thanked him for standing up for our constitution.
I also cringed when I heard/read some of the transcripts and the ensuing discussions that resulted on several gun sites. What we have to keep focus on is this:
He is trying to eat the proverbial elephant.
The only way to do it is.....one bite at a time.
Our rights have been eroded over a rather long period of time, and unfortunately, they will not become restored in part or in whole overnight and with one case in front of the SCOTUS. We still have a tremendous number of people out there,with the power of the vote, that are rabidly anti 2A. Their attitudes and predispositions on the issue will not easily changed, SCOTUS ruling or no.
We all need to pick up a fork and help Gura eat this elephant, not skewer him with it!
I just e-mailed him with an offer to spend my annual NRA dues as a donation to the cause, and thanked him for standing up for our constitution.
BillMCyrus
Regular Member
imported post
The problem is that starvation isn't solved by a single bite and if you only get one bite it'd better get the whole steak in or you'd better have lots more bites all the time...and waiting 70 years in between bites is what's gotten us where we are right now, malnourished and darn near dead.
The problem is that starvation isn't solved by a single bite and if you only get one bite it'd better get the whole steak in or you'd better have lots more bites all the time...and waiting 70 years in between bites is what's gotten us where we are right now, malnourished and darn near dead.
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
imported post
We ain't near dead, my man. Not even close. Let them think that.....muahahaha
We ain't near dead, my man. Not even close. Let them think that.....muahahaha
sjalterego
Regular Member
imported post
I went back and read those portions of the transcript and it is clear that Mr. Gura was answering the questions re machine guns with reference to the standard announced in Miller v. U.S. which declared a 2 part test to determine whether a gun could be restricted.
Mr. Gura was not arguing that, in the abstract, the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted to allow the prohibition of machine guns. Rather, he was arguing that under Miller, if the S.Ct. decided not to overturn Miller, the S. Ct. could still find the 2d Amend. provides an individual right and that machine guns could be restricted under Miller. One of the Justices then through out the line that he though Miller was deficient and Gura quickly agreed, thus indicating that the S.Ct. need not be bound by Miller in deciding this case and can start afresh on a blank slate.
Last, I am somewhat disappointed in all the GURA bashing going on. The guy has probably done more for gun rights in the last 5 years than any other living person. He had the guts to take this case when the NRA didn't want to and didn't want him to.
All the Monday (actually Weds.) morning lawyers here don't seem to understand the law or appellate practice very well. No matter what the Supreme Court decides in this case, it won't make any specific rulings of law on machine guns. Neither of the laws being challenged in this case mention machine guns at all. The court only decides the case before it and will only address the laws before it based on the facts before it. The Court and or various Justices in their opinions may discuss hypothetical laws, facts and holdings relating to whether the 2A applies to machine guns. However since nothing in this case involves machine guns the actual ruling will NOT relate to machine guns. That is a battle for a later date, assuming we win the preliminary battle of simply establishing that the 2A establishes an individual right and that a complete prohibtion against the possession of handguns and operable long arms violates that right.
Given that the case can only advance the 2A agenda if we win a ruling on the individual right and we lose if the S.Ct. denies the existence of an individual right, why would Gura make it harder to win the individual right argument by claiming that the 2A is unlimited and provides an individual right for ALL "arms", including machine guns, "bazookas", anti-tank and ground to air missiles, explosives, tanks, battle ships, attack helicopters etc.If he claims too much, some of the moderate justices might be scared off and decide there is no individual right. Whereas if, in argument, he concedes that machine guns might not be protected, he makes it easier for the moderate justices to vote for an individual right without losing anything since the judgment will be limited to the facts and law of this case. There will be no opportunity for the justices to say D.C.s laws at issue violate the 2A but we hold that it would not violate the 2A to prohibit machine guns. That sort of advisory/hypothetica opinion just doesn't/won't happen.
I went back and read those portions of the transcript and it is clear that Mr. Gura was answering the questions re machine guns with reference to the standard announced in Miller v. U.S. which declared a 2 part test to determine whether a gun could be restricted.
Mr. Gura was not arguing that, in the abstract, the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted to allow the prohibition of machine guns. Rather, he was arguing that under Miller, if the S.Ct. decided not to overturn Miller, the S. Ct. could still find the 2d Amend. provides an individual right and that machine guns could be restricted under Miller. One of the Justices then through out the line that he though Miller was deficient and Gura quickly agreed, thus indicating that the S.Ct. need not be bound by Miller in deciding this case and can start afresh on a blank slate.
Last, I am somewhat disappointed in all the GURA bashing going on. The guy has probably done more for gun rights in the last 5 years than any other living person. He had the guts to take this case when the NRA didn't want to and didn't want him to.
All the Monday (actually Weds.) morning lawyers here don't seem to understand the law or appellate practice very well. No matter what the Supreme Court decides in this case, it won't make any specific rulings of law on machine guns. Neither of the laws being challenged in this case mention machine guns at all. The court only decides the case before it and will only address the laws before it based on the facts before it. The Court and or various Justices in their opinions may discuss hypothetical laws, facts and holdings relating to whether the 2A applies to machine guns. However since nothing in this case involves machine guns the actual ruling will NOT relate to machine guns. That is a battle for a later date, assuming we win the preliminary battle of simply establishing that the 2A establishes an individual right and that a complete prohibtion against the possession of handguns and operable long arms violates that right.
Given that the case can only advance the 2A agenda if we win a ruling on the individual right and we lose if the S.Ct. denies the existence of an individual right, why would Gura make it harder to win the individual right argument by claiming that the 2A is unlimited and provides an individual right for ALL "arms", including machine guns, "bazookas", anti-tank and ground to air missiles, explosives, tanks, battle ships, attack helicopters etc.If he claims too much, some of the moderate justices might be scared off and decide there is no individual right. Whereas if, in argument, he concedes that machine guns might not be protected, he makes it easier for the moderate justices to vote for an individual right without losing anything since the judgment will be limited to the facts and law of this case. There will be no opportunity for the justices to say D.C.s laws at issue violate the 2A but we hold that it would not violate the 2A to prohibit machine guns. That sort of advisory/hypothetica opinion just doesn't/won't happen.
sjalterego
Regular Member
imported post
Since the above was my first post, let me now make the obligatory statement:
Long time lurker/reader first time poster. I live in Southern California, the land of the 2A oppressed, and am interested in/curious about open carry, primarily as a vehicle to raise awareness of gun rights. I would prefer to CC but that is not a possibility under the current law and police chief. I am an attorney although I do not specialize in 2A issues.
Since the above was my first post, let me now make the obligatory statement:
Long time lurker/reader first time poster. I live in Southern California, the land of the 2A oppressed, and am interested in/curious about open carry, primarily as a vehicle to raise awareness of gun rights. I would prefer to CC but that is not a possibility under the current law and police chief. I am an attorney although I do not specialize in 2A issues.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
sjalterego wrote:
Just so. Thank you. Welcome to OCDO. I hope that you'll comment further when it pleases you.
sjalterego wrote:
Just so. Thank you. Welcome to OCDO. I hope that you'll comment further when it pleases you.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Yes, welcome to the forum. I always enjoy having a lawyer's perspective on the forum and we are always happy to welcome new members.
Yes, welcome to the forum. I always enjoy having a lawyer's perspective on the forum and we are always happy to welcome new members.
longwatch
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Alan Guras response on Subguns forum.
http://www.subguns.com/boards/mgmsg.cgi?read=649693
H/T http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2008/03/guras-response-on-machine-guns.html
Thanks for your support.
The solution to 922(o) will have to be political in the end. 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,
some of them exceedingly bright people. Ditto for the people who wanted me
to declare an absolute right, like I'm there to waive some sort of GOA
bumper sticker. That's a good way to lose, too, and look like a moron in
the process.
I didn't make the last 219 years of constitutional law and I am not
responsible for the way 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 don'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. Honestly some people just want to
stay angry. I'm glad you're not among them.
You want to change 922(o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for "climate
change."
Thanks,
Alan
Alan Guras response on Subguns forum.
http://www.subguns.com/boards/mgmsg.cgi?read=649693
H/T http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2008/03/guras-response-on-machine-guns.html
Thanks for your support.
The solution to 922(o) will have to be political in the end. 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,
some of them exceedingly bright people. Ditto for the people who wanted me
to declare an absolute right, like I'm there to waive some sort of GOA
bumper sticker. That's a good way to lose, too, and look like a moron in
the process.
I didn't make the last 219 years of constitutional law and I am not
responsible for the way 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 don'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. Honestly some people just want to
stay angry. I'm glad you're not among them.
You want to change 922(o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for "climate
change."
Thanks,
Alan
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
longwatch wrote:
Ahh, a victory small. I wonder how much of the carping is NRA influenced.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
longwatch wrote:
Ahh, a victory small. I wonder how much of the carping is NRA influenced.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
longwatch
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Just my opinion, but I think not very much. Thats my read from my experience talking with him.
Just my opinion, but I think not very much. Thats my read from my experience talking with him.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
This isn't a zero sum game and we are not in a position to say that if they aren't going to play our way, we are taking our toys and going home. As I have continued reading about this on various forums and other sources the more I understand what Gura was doing, nay, had to do. I relistened to his portion of the OA afterwards and have a much better understanding of why he did what he did. The law is a funny thing that often does not make sense, even to those who practice it, let alone to we who do not.
I still cringe at the fact that the SCOTUS, which is supposed to simply decide the constitutionality of this issue, period, is so fickle and political (which a life appt was supposed to prevent) that one cannot argue "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed" dammit, without losing automatically because of political reasons. But that is an idealist argument in the real world.
If the 2A is ruled an individual right and DC's gun ban is struck down, I think that gives Chicago residents a good chance at reinstating some of their infringed rights. Depending on how broadly worded such a decision is, perhaps other areas that are highly restricted will be able to enjoy a little more breathing room. There will be other battles to be fought on this certainly. And while I appreciate the MG argument, I think realistically that is the last one we would get back, if at all.
This isn't a zero sum game and we are not in a position to say that if they aren't going to play our way, we are taking our toys and going home. As I have continued reading about this on various forums and other sources the more I understand what Gura was doing, nay, had to do. I relistened to his portion of the OA afterwards and have a much better understanding of why he did what he did. The law is a funny thing that often does not make sense, even to those who practice it, let alone to we who do not.
I still cringe at the fact that the SCOTUS, which is supposed to simply decide the constitutionality of this issue, period, is so fickle and political (which a life appt was supposed to prevent) that one cannot argue "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed" dammit, without losing automatically because of political reasons. But that is an idealist argument in the real world.
If the 2A is ruled an individual right and DC's gun ban is struck down, I think that gives Chicago residents a good chance at reinstating some of their infringed rights. Depending on how broadly worded such a decision is, perhaps other areas that are highly restricted will be able to enjoy a little more breathing room. There will be other battles to be fought on this certainly. And while I appreciate the MG argument, I think realistically that is the last one we would get back, if at all.
docwatson
Regular Member
imported post
My 922(O)1 position is this:
1) Under a 'militia basis' the manufacture, possession, transfer, and ownership of machine guns are protected because they are arms in 'common use' by the military. Dellinger conceded that point in his opening remarks and Justice Ginsberg brought it up as well. If we are using the contemporaneous examples as well as the descendant argument for militia weapons, then machine guns and - more radical peers of mine - artillery are the *prime* examples of what modern people should have in their homes and communities since early colonial settlers such as Pennsylvania banded together to purchase cannon and drilled with the Pennsylvania Rifle (itself the bleeding edge of technology for it’s time), so from a purely ‘militia’ view, an MG is just fine.
2) Under the 'individual rights' basis, the manufacture, possession, transfer, and ownership of machine guns are protected since the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The ability of the individual to be familiar and proficient with military arms is dependent on his or her individual ability to keep and bear them for use.
3) The purpose of the RKBA and the militia at their core is to ensure Liberty; the Second Amendment is the 'last resort' for a populace who no longer has a means for redress either in the Courts or in the Congress. It is the means of the populace overthrow a Tyrant or a Tyrannical government and restore the Constitution to the original framer's intent. This is a contentious and frightening point of view for many 'Antis' as they simply don't agree with the Constitution except in a form that goes with the sign of the times and popular thought.
The 'Antis' really should fear DC vs Heller and should fear us as gun owners: It means that Constitutional Rights are immutable and that attempts to remove them could result in another revolution if they can't be resolved by any other means.
My 922(O)1 position is this:
1) Under a 'militia basis' the manufacture, possession, transfer, and ownership of machine guns are protected because they are arms in 'common use' by the military. Dellinger conceded that point in his opening remarks and Justice Ginsberg brought it up as well. If we are using the contemporaneous examples as well as the descendant argument for militia weapons, then machine guns and - more radical peers of mine - artillery are the *prime* examples of what modern people should have in their homes and communities since early colonial settlers such as Pennsylvania banded together to purchase cannon and drilled with the Pennsylvania Rifle (itself the bleeding edge of technology for it’s time), so from a purely ‘militia’ view, an MG is just fine.
2) Under the 'individual rights' basis, the manufacture, possession, transfer, and ownership of machine guns are protected since the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The ability of the individual to be familiar and proficient with military arms is dependent on his or her individual ability to keep and bear them for use.
3) The purpose of the RKBA and the militia at their core is to ensure Liberty; the Second Amendment is the 'last resort' for a populace who no longer has a means for redress either in the Courts or in the Congress. It is the means of the populace overthrow a Tyrant or a Tyrannical government and restore the Constitution to the original framer's intent. This is a contentious and frightening point of view for many 'Antis' as they simply don't agree with the Constitution except in a form that goes with the sign of the times and popular thought.
The 'Antis' really should fear DC vs Heller and should fear us as gun owners: It means that Constitutional Rights are immutable and that attempts to remove them could result in another revolution if they can't be resolved by any other means.
Doug Huffman
Banned
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,777
imported post
As Doug pointed out, there is a marked difference between our core beliefs and the legal environment (which few non-attorneys truly understand) and we need to remember what we are hoping to accomplish here.
The Supreme Court is clearly NOT going to rule that ALL regulation is unconstitutional nor is that an issue which is at question in this case. Alan and Dr Levy have framed the question very narrowly INTENTIONALLY (which was a brilliant legal move I might add).
The case accepts that under certain circumstances, and subject to Strict Scrutiny, fundamental rights may be regulated. As I read it, the two questions before the court are:
(A) Does the 2nd Amendment represent an individual "fundamental" right?
and
(B) If it DOES represent an individual "fundamental" right then does DC's absolute ban live up to the standard of Strict Scrutiny that is necessary when a law or action of the U.S. federal government, a state government, or a local municipality infringes upon a "fundamental" constitutional right, particularly those listed in the Bill of Rights.
To pass strict scrutiny, a law or policy must satisfy three requirements:
(1) It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
(2) The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
(3) The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest.
A secondary question of which level of scrutiny SHOULD be met will arise if the answer to (A) is anything other than an unqualified YES.
The other levels of constitutional scrutiny are Intermediate Scrutiny and Rational Basis review. A finding that firearms ownership is only subject to either of these would be a legal setback for us (especially if they find only Rational Basis review is necessary.)
From a strategic point of view, Alan's response clearly plays to the benefit of the Heller case.
How? Because it limits the scope of the discussion specifically to the handgun ban in DC; a ban that completely prohibits ownership of self-defense firearms that, by inclusion, the court has seemingly accepted as "suitable" for civilian use.
If we get a "fundamental" rights ruling in this case, then we use the precedent and Dr Levy's case selection strategy to attack other laws one at a time. This case is similar to "Brown v. Board of Education" in that it will not be the end of the struggle but merely the platform from which future legal challenges may be launched.
PS. For those of you questioning it, Alan is definitely one of the good guys!!! I am FIRMLY convinced that it is ONLY through the dedication of legal professionals like Alan and Dr Levy that we will continue to improve the landscape for American gun owners!
As Doug pointed out, there is a marked difference between our core beliefs and the legal environment (which few non-attorneys truly understand) and we need to remember what we are hoping to accomplish here.
The Supreme Court is clearly NOT going to rule that ALL regulation is unconstitutional nor is that an issue which is at question in this case. Alan and Dr Levy have framed the question very narrowly INTENTIONALLY (which was a brilliant legal move I might add).
The case accepts that under certain circumstances, and subject to Strict Scrutiny, fundamental rights may be regulated. As I read it, the two questions before the court are:
(A) Does the 2nd Amendment represent an individual "fundamental" right?
and
(B) If it DOES represent an individual "fundamental" right then does DC's absolute ban live up to the standard of Strict Scrutiny that is necessary when a law or action of the U.S. federal government, a state government, or a local municipality infringes upon a "fundamental" constitutional right, particularly those listed in the Bill of Rights.
To pass strict scrutiny, a law or policy must satisfy three requirements:
(1) It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
(2) The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
(3) The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest.
A secondary question of which level of scrutiny SHOULD be met will arise if the answer to (A) is anything other than an unqualified YES.
The other levels of constitutional scrutiny are Intermediate Scrutiny and Rational Basis review. A finding that firearms ownership is only subject to either of these would be a legal setback for us (especially if they find only Rational Basis review is necessary.)
From a strategic point of view, Alan's response clearly plays to the benefit of the Heller case.
How? Because it limits the scope of the discussion specifically to the handgun ban in DC; a ban that completely prohibits ownership of self-defense firearms that, by inclusion, the court has seemingly accepted as "suitable" for civilian use.
If we get a "fundamental" rights ruling in this case, then we use the precedent and Dr Levy's case selection strategy to attack other laws one at a time. This case is similar to "Brown v. Board of Education" in that it will not be the end of the struggle but merely the platform from which future legal challenges may be launched.
PS. For those of you questioning it, Alan is definitely one of the good guys!!! I am FIRMLY convinced that it is ONLY through the dedication of legal professionals like Alan and Dr Levy that we will continue to improve the landscape for American gun owners!
IanB
Regular Member
imported post
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
Exactly what I said in not so many words on page one. But then again, John also attended the GRPC last year and heard the same speech by Mr. Gura as well as the one-on-one conversation that took place during the social hours. I have the upmost respect for both Mr. Levey and Mr. Gura.
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
Exactly what I said in not so many words on page one. But then again, John also attended the GRPC last year and heard the same speech by Mr. Gura as well as the one-on-one conversation that took place during the social hours. I have the upmost respect for both Mr. Levey and Mr. Gura.