docwatson
Regular Member
imported post
I wrote Alan Gura on his website earlier this evening and he wrote me back:
My email:
Alan's Reply:
I did apologize to him and offered him an opportunity to come to the VCDL meeting. The last part concerns me because I wonder why he took a 'pro-bono' case if he wasn't a 'true beleiver' and thinks that those of us who want machine guns are 'nuts' and 'wackos' and 'ingrates'.
I wrote Alan Gura on his website earlier this evening and he wrote me back:
My email:
From: xxx223@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 9:00 PM To: alan@gurapossessky.com Subject: Contact from Website Name: Chris Watson Email: xxx223@comcast.net Phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx Comments: Counselor, Overall I am happy with what looks like a positive outcome for individual rights. I think this is a 'win' for your client However, I also think you just shafted the Class 3 crowd with a rusty jackhammer in our anal cavity. Today, machine guns **ARE** legal to own in the United States by private civilians; the issue at hand is the current ban on importation and civilian use (Police and military can buy whatever they like). It was obvious that you were unaware of the status of machine gun ownership and the way that ban was accomplished in 1986. You had an opportunity to take a pro-gun, pro-right, pro-militia and pro-individual stance all at one and you fumbled. Machine gun ownership satisfies three separate and interconnected issues: 1) The ability of the populace to own weapons in common use by the Army ('militia'); 2) The right of the individual to keep and bear such an arm; and 3) the ability to of the populace to overthrow a tyrannical government requires the populace to have some minimal degree of parity with standing forces. Your argument in favor of 'reasonable restrictions' was the worst gaffe I think Iv'e ever seen; you may have very well opened the path to restriction by legislation! I can’t believe that you screwed up - and screwed gun owners - so badly.
Alan's Reply:
If I said any of that, I'd have lost 12-0. they'd quickly confirm 3 additional justices just to vote against us. You don't know what you are talking about. Get this -- everyone except for hard core gunnies HATES machine guns and will not accept a Second Amendment that protects them. And there is no such thing as an absolute right in our constitution. First Amendment? Look at McCain-Feingold. Abortion? Undue burden. And those rights are a little more established right now in this court. But no, Mr. Extremist take no prisoners fantasy-land armchair constitutionalist, YOU think with the right to arms, of all places, right now, they'll suddenly declare there's an absolute right AND it includes MACHINE GUNS. Insane. Even though there is BARELY agreement that it's even an individual right in the first place! My job is to make arguments within the realm of REALITY. You know, the USA that exists on Earth in 2008, not some science fiction alternate reality that exists in your fantasy world. Maybe it's an imperfect legal landscape. I'm not responsible for the last 219 years of constitutional law, of which you are utterly ignorant. You don't deserve having me defend your constitutional rights, be very happy it was me up there and not some wacky nut with absolutely no sense of how the law works. Ingrate lunatic.
I did apologize to him and offered him an opportunity to come to the VCDL meeting. The last part concerns me because I wonder why he took a 'pro-bono' case if he wasn't a 'true beleiver' and thinks that those of us who want machine guns are 'nuts' and 'wackos' and 'ingrates'.