March 2008 – Page 11 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Alan Gura on the MG Issue

This is reprinted from subguns.com, but I think it’s important for everyone to read this:

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

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

Hat Tip to SayUncle for discovering this.

GOA Release on Heller

GOA once again fans of the flame of anger and resentment by trying to trash people who actually pick up the ball and try to move if forward:

More to the point, Justice John Paul Stevens asked Alan Gura, the attorney for Dick Heller, if it would be proper to say that the right protected in the Second Amendment shall not be “unreasonably infringed”?

To our shock and horror, Gura answered “yes.” He did qualify his answer somewhat by saying “we don’t know” exactly what this “unreasonable standard looks like.” But he conceded a significant amount of ground with his answer, because any ban would be “reasonable” to Chuck Schumer and Sarah Brady.

Truth be told, we do have a proper standard for interpreting the Second Amendment. The language doesn’t say anything about “reasonable” or “unreasonable;” it simply says the right of the people “shall not be infringed.” It’s a shame that even people on “our side” donâ€™t fully understand that.

Larry Pratt is no doubt a legal expert and knows better than the parties involved in this case, many of whom were experienced supreme court litigators, how to handle oral arguments before The Court.Â And is GOA suggesting with “our side” schtick in quotes that the people who worked long and hard on this case, many of whom have been laying the groundwork for this all their academic and legal careers are not on it?

As I said yesterday in a comment over at Dave Hardy’s site, where Dave mentioned Gura was getting messages all that evening from angry folks:

I want to be the first to welcome Mr. Gura to the wonderful world of pro-gun activism, where if he had the entire team of petitioners dangling over a shark tank with a copy of the National Firearms Act sticking out of their back pockets, there would still be yahoos screaming that the sharks don’t look hungry enough.

Guys like Dave Hardy, Dave Kopel, Clayton, Joe Olsen, Alan Gura, Bob Levy, Bob Cottrol — the names of people who have worked on this case could go on and on — they are on our side.Â I don’t question that.Â I do question whether Larry Pratt and the GOA are interested in really anything other than feathering their own nests at the expense of the entire movement.Â Alan Gura in all liklihood just won a case that gives us a second amendment that actually means something, but he’s not on our side?Â GOA can go to hell.

We Don’t Want Your Kind Here

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission wants to shut down a gun club:

Baxter, a Pacifica resident, is one of about 300 members worried about losing access to their favorite pastime as the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission develops a plan aimed at improving the health of the Lake Merced watershed and increasing recreational opportunities at the long-neglected lake. The gun club is the only recreational activity at risk of being closed as part of the possible changes.

It looks like a club for shotgunners, mostly.Â But that isn’t stopping residents of the smuggiest city in America from getting their panties in a bunch:

But the prospect of shutting the gun club has some people steaming mad and others celebrating. In a city that voted three years ago to ban handguns entirely, many residents may be surprised that a gun club exists – and some of its critics are hoping to seize on the anti-firearm sentiment.

Felicia Zeiger, who lives in Merced Heights, has made the club a crusade for years. She says she can’t garden on weekends because of the noise, and is often forced to drive to the other side of the city to walk her dog, who is terrified by the cacophony.Â

Club’s been there longer than you lady, deal with it.Â This is what happens when burdensome gun regulations drive the number of gun owners below critical mass.Â The don’t have to make guns illegal if we have no where to shoot them.

Lehigh Law Prof Blasts PLCAA

George Nation, Professor of Law and Business doesn’t like the firearms industry:

“Traditionally, gun manufacturers have escaped responsibility when it comes to the criminal use of their products,” says Nation. “The legal system essentially presumes that criminal activity is not to be expected and that manufacturers have no control over the use of their products.â€

â€œBut with more than two million handgun-related crimes each year, and some gun advertising clearly aimed at criminal users, this traditional presumption is at odds with reality,” he adds.

Anyone able to grab a copy of this law review?Â I’ve seen a lot of advertising for guns in gun magazeines, but not anywhere else.Â I’d like to know what evidence Professor Nation has to make this claim.Â My guess is he has none.

UPDATE: Trigger Finger provides some examples of what Professor Nation may be talking about.

California At It Again

Not content to stick it to gun owners with just Microstamping, now they want you to have to get permission from the police before purchasing ammunition.Â In addition to that, you have to be licensed to sell ammo to transfer more than 50 rounds in a month.Â So you couldn’t give or sell your friend 100 rounds of some old ammo you’ve had sitting around without breaking the law.Â Each sale of ammunition will also be subject to a three dollar surcharge, to be sent to your masters in Sacramento.

The message to gun owners is loud and clear in California: “We don’t want you here, and if you stay here, and continue doing this disgusting thing, we’re going to do a lot of things so that it’ll be easy to throw you in jail.”

Whatever Fenty is smoking …

… Marion Barry probably wants some too.

“Speak English” OK’d by City

Joe Vento, owner of Geno’s Steaks in Philadelphia, has been cleared of any wrongdoing when he posted as sign asking patrons to speak english when ordering.

I’m very glad that Joey’s betters have given him the green light, but I’m afraid James Madison already did that.Â I hope others will join me in saying that the Philadelphia Human Relations Commission can still go to hell for even putting on the charade that they had any authority under any law to make an issue out of this.Â As Wyatt Earp says, it was a waste of city taxpayer money.Â Thankfully, the city didn’t make an issue of this to the point where their betters have to remind the City Commission that they are not, in fact, part of Communist Cuba, but are still part of the United States.

Month: March 2008