My letter to Gura and his response

[docwatson]

imported post

I sincerely doubt that at this point anyone thinks Alan is a bad guy and we all have a better idea of his strategy; we just didn't agree with him throwing the Class 3 folks under the bus and thought he should have avoided the issue entirely if he wasn't prepared to discuss it positively.

While it may be true that the Justices had thier opinions before the oral arguments started, making concessions may have made it harder for some of us in the future. The fear for the unitiaited is that his argument could be cited later as a reason for 'reasonable restriction' under a distinctly more liberal and activist court under the next administration and *THOSE* are the Justices that many of us fear.

 

[John Pierce]

imported post

docwatson wrote:

I sincerely doubt that at this point anyone thinks Alan is a bad guy and we all have a better idea of his strategy; we just didn't agree with him throwing the Class 3 folks under the bus and thought he should have avoided the issue entirely if he wasn't prepared to discuss it positively.

While it may be true that the Justices had thier opinions before the oral arguments started, making concessions may have made it harder for some of us in the future. The fear for the unitiaited is that his argument could be cited later as a reason for 'reasonable restriction' under a distinctly more liberal and activist court under the next administration and *THOSE* are the Justices that many of us fear.

There was absolutely NO way to avoid this question. We knew going in that this question was going to be asked and it needed to be dismissed in a way that did not prejudice the justices against an individual, fundamental rights ruling in THIS CASE.

Alan didn't throw the Class III people "under the bus". He simply refused to allow an off-topic issue to be used as an obstacle to the finding we CRUCIALLY need in this NARROWLY defined case.

PS. I do understand the frustration but this first step must be successful if future challenges are to have any hope at all. He did the right thing!

PPS. For those of you who are interested in legal history, Plessy v. Ferguson is a great example of a civil rights case that was lost because of an over-broad claim that didn't resonate with the Justices of the day. Contrast that with Brown v. Board of Education in which Thurgood Marshall had narrowed the focus of the case to one whih the Justices were unable to disagree with. This provided a foothold to ultimately overturn Separate But Equal completely over the course of the next several decades. With any luck, DC v. Heller will be our Brown v. Board of Education.

 

[docwatson]

imported post

Don't you have fears and concerns about tryinig to carrying 2A forward under an activist and VERY liberal Obama-era Court?

 

[John Pierce]

imported post

docwatson wrote:

Don't you have fears and concerns about tryinig to carrying 2A forward under an activist and VERY liberal Obama-era Court?

Absolutely I do.

That is why that I am so determined to get McCain elected even though he is at best middle of the road on gun rights. I truly believe he will nominate jurists who will be MUCH better for our cause.

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

docwatson wrote:

Don't you have fears and concerns about tryinig to carrying 2A forward under an activist and VERY liberal Obama-era Court?

The Roberts Court won't move anymore to the left under Obama or Hillary. No conservative or moderate justices are likely to retire or die in the next 8 years. At worst, the court will stay in its current make up, though we would lose a chance to get that 5th solid conservative vote, which would make cases like Heller much less of a nail biter.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Alan Gura wrote:

SNIP...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

A-frikking-men. Like it or not, your rights are affectedby the attitude of the vast majority of citizens.

You are not going to secure your right to own machine guns by arguing in a court room, until you have softened public opposition to the idea as well. Activism isn't just about wishing for a fantasy court ruling; it's about changing the public's mind to ease the way for the changes you'd like to see, and changing the law to make this easier.

For most of the public, including some SC justices, owning a handgun seems reasonable. MG's are widely seen as unreasonable. What you are asking is for Gura to throw the entire individual right to bear arms, all of us, under the bus along with you.

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

What you are asking is for Gura to throw the entire individual right to bear arms, all of us, under the bus along with you.

That's a good way to put it.

 

[I_Hate_Illinois]

imported post

docwatson wrote:

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'.

What is VCDL?

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

I_Hate_Illinois wrote:

What is VCDL?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=VCDL

 

[paramedic70002]

imported post

I just wonder why he couldn't have said something to the effect of:

Civilian possession of machine guns is legal in many states today, but possession of machine guns in Washington DC is not, nor am I arguing the topic.

And then moved on.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Remember the nerdy kids in HS that took 'forensics' or were on the debate team? They know the answer.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Remember the nerdy kids in HS that took 'forensics' or were on the debate team? They know the answer.

:X Hey, I was on the speech team and a member of National Forensics League (NFL) but was never "nerdy". I was always , at least for what was appropriate at that age for my generation.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

I am as proud to have been a nerd and geek before it was cool as I am to have been damned/castigated as a hippy.

I was cutting across the campus at Idaho State Pocatello while I was one of Rickovers' minions, AJ Squared-Away, and was told to "go home, you dirty hippy!"

 

[IanB]

imported post

Hyman G?

 

[John Pierce]

imported post

nakedshoplifter wrote:

Hyman G?

That is what I assumed.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Admiral Hyman George Rickover, father of the Nuclear Navy and once the most powerful man on Earth.

 

[VAopencarry]

imported post

paramedic70002 wrote:

I just wonder why he couldn't have said something to the effect of:

Civilian possession of machine guns is legal in many states today, but possession of machine guns in Washington DC is not, nor am I arguing the topic.

And then moved on.

Me too