Alan Gura Endorses the Brady Position

[Well Regulated]

From the Houghington Post who Had an amicus Brief Before the Court in favor of the District and no friend of liberty:


"What still stands out to me three days after the argument, however, is that there was broad support from all sides for all current and proposed regulations concerning guns, short of a near-total ban on all guns. It was intriguing to watch the Justices search for an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment that would also allow most existing gun control laws.


For example, Justice Breyer wanted to know what sorts of gun control laws would survive under a "reasonableness" standard vis-à-vis some new interpretation of the Second Amendment. Questions from Justices Breyer, Stevens and Ginsburg managed to extract concessions from Mr. Heller's attorney, Alan Gura, toward the end of his argument.


Machine gun bans? Reasonable, Gura conceded. Plastic gun bans? Reasonable. Licensing? "We don't have a problem with the concept of licensing," Gura said. Requirements to demonstrate competency with a gun? Reasonable. Background checks? Reasonable "of course," Gura said. Gun bans by college campuses? Mr. Gura said that "Might be doable."


In a matter of about 10 minutes, Mr. Heller's own attorney ended up endorsing (or at least not opposing) key portions of the Brady Campaign's legislative and policy agenda."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/historic-day-at-the-supre_b_92800.html

 

[SuperNaut]

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,
Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven,
Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads
And recks not his own rede."

I'd like to think that Helmke is underestimating the Huffpo audience, I think they are smart enough to discern what really happened.

 

[Igloodude]

Boy are they in for some rude surprises...

 

[Animal Mother]

Ha! I suppose if you were an anti-gunner and you just had your legal position completely blasted out of the water by the highest court in the nation you've got to find some kind of silver lining.

The fact is that Gura's opinions in the oral arguments will have very, very little bearing on future 2A cases before the court, assuming we win this one.

But the groundwork has been laid, now we are the one's with the camel's nose under the tent (for a change).

 

[RP88]

it doesnt matter. None of those agendas were part of the question at large: handguns vs. DC.

The case CAN be used later if it establishes precedent for us, but you cannot encompass everything into a specific case. It's on a city ban on handguns, not a federal ban on all guns, etc.

Gura pretty much gave an appeasing opinion. The point was to find someone who believes in individual right and argue. When cases for machine guns, assault weapons, etc. etc. we'll choose someone else who supports opinions favorable of those.

However, Gura could have possibly allowed gov's to get away with near-ban laws that cost lots of money for potential gun owners.

 

[PaladinX13]

Just goes to show that there are people ignorant of how legal advocacy works on either side of the issue. It isn't "intriguing" that Justices looked for an interpretation that would allow most existing gun control laws, that's par for the course and any other expectation is not in line with the reality of how courts work.

Given that people on this board on THIS side of the issue are capable of debating these finer points endlessly, how much more so would Gura's relevant advocacy compromised if his time was sucked into irrelevant verbal spars with Justices vehemently against our side of the issue with both the present legal reality and popular opinion behind them?

Helmke's mischaracterization of legal proceedings won't get any traction... somehow "not opposing" = "endorsement"? I don't know about you, but I don't dress up in tights to wage a one-man war in opposition to crime... because it's not my battle to fight. Does that suddenly make me someone who endorses crime?

Shame on anyone who buys this line to feed their own animus.

 

[ctdonath]

Sure seemed like he was sacrificing unrelated issues before the judges brought them up.

 

[ants]

1. I agree with Paladin and other posters above.

2. We aren't naive enough to believe that the members of the US Supreme Court will base their decisions strictly on Alan Gura's responses to their questions.

 

[El Tejon]

ct, those issues were not before them.

 

[Werewolf]

The current crop of justices are at best non boat rockers which is bad for Heller. They don't want to jeopordize the present state of affairs vis a vis existing gun control laws.

At worst they're a group in love with government and go with it every chance they get - think Kelo.

I'm a pessimist. When the current court overturns Heller or reaches a decision so narrow that it might as well overturn Heller I'm gonna go - eh! To be expected. If they uphold Heller and incorporate I'm gonna be ecstatic.

The rest of you - so desperately trying to anticipate the best possible outcome for us gunnies are gonna go out and commit suicide when Heller doesn't go our way - and I'm sad to say it doesn't look to me like it will.

 

[LawBot5000]

What Gura's concession gets us from the Court is going to leave a much nastier taste in the mouth of the Bradies.

We've been waiting 70 years for the court to say "2nd amendment = individual right." Everything else in this opinion is going to be dicta. This victory gives us years of litigation fun, especially in the 9th circus.

 

[Wineoceros]

Machine gun bans? Reasonable, Gura conceded. Plastic gun bans? Reasonable. Licensing? "We don't have a problem with the concept of licensing," Gura said. Requirements to demonstrate competency with a gun? Reasonable. Background checks?

Oddly enough, all of those restrictions apply to concealed carry in TX (well, except for the "all plastic gun" ban), and yet I'm not at all prevented from acquiring a CHL and both owning and carrying a handgun. Somehow that doesn't strike me as what the Bradys are going for.

 

[PaladinX13]

Sure seemed like he was sacrificing unrelated issues before the judges brought them up.

Which is the smartest thing in the world given the present legal reality and the views of the Justices posing the questions. ctdonath, I have "conceded" my position in the war on crime without even being asked, does that constitute endorsement or simply rationality?

If you want to see bad lawyering, look at Dellinger's 10 minute rebuttal. He spent HALF of his precious time debating trigger locks with Scalia and Roberts on how trigger locks weren't relevant to this case. A case, 5 years in the making, with a precious handful of minutes to sharpen your case... and Dellinger wasted half his time engaging in irrelevant topics which hardly swayed his inquisitors one iota. You dispose of the issue as quickly as possible while humoring the Justice.

Heck, Scalia even said, "I know this doesn't matter, but I'm curious..." That's a blatant invitation to engage in time-wasting debate where the Justice has traps set up in advance... Dellinger was literally LAUGHED AT by the room when Scalia raised the image of turning on your lamp & searching for your glasses to work the combination on a trigger lock during a night-time defense.

Do you think Breyer or Stephens were going to be any more merciful to Gura if he had taken a hard line on machine guns and started that irrelevant debate? Do you think those Justices didn't have their traps ready to be sprung? If Gura had started citing statistics and policy arguments, he would have been drowned out and interrupted by their stats and policies and ended up giving them more voice than otherwise. The far better thing was to make reserved concessions on the things that already reflected the present legal landscape but were irrelevant to your case... and use your time on the relevant issue.

 

[RP88]

I'm sure they'll rule it an individual right and that the ban will get struck, but they'll say that it's perfectly fin to make gun permits in DC cost thousands of dollars and other nasty technicalities that will make the trouble of owning a gun in DC not worth it.

All it means is that they cant take guns from us away COMPLETELY, but that they can still de facto them from the casual person or make it so that only people whom they 'like' can have one. There will still be alot of work to do to cement current laws so that gun owners cannot lose anything else.

 

[Johannes_Paulsen]

One step at a time, then.

 

[Wineoceros]

I'm sure they'll rule it an individual right and that the ban will get struck, but they'll say that it's perfectly fin to make gun permits in DC cost thousands of dollars and other nasty technicalities that will make the trouble of owning a gun in DC not worth it.

Very doubtful. It is defensible (even if we don't like it) to declare registration a "reasonable restriction". But it is not defensible to implement registration in a way that unreasonably prevents the vast majority of people from being able to comply. Charging "thousands of dollars" for registration would clearly constitute just such an unreasonably restrictive implementation, and would almost certainly be viewed as a de facto ban.

 

[illspirit]

Meanwhile, inside the courtroom, I watched the lawyers present their cases and I was constantly aware of how critically and immediately the Justices' decision will affect the gun laws that protect you and your family every day, including the Brady Law, the federal machine gun ban

The MG ban protects my family every day? From what? The one homicide in history committed with a registered full auto by a rouge police officer who would have been exempt from the ban anyway?

 

[RP88]

Very doubtful. It is defensible (even if we don't like it) to declare registration a "reasonable restriction". But it is not defensible to implement registration in a way that unreasonably prevents the vast majority of people from being able to comply. Charging "thousands of dollars" for registration would clearly constitute just such an unreasonably restrictive implementation, and would almost certainly be viewed as a de facto ban.

well, making it still cost one pretty penny will still pass. it did in NYC, it will (or can) in DC

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Quote:
Machine gun bans? Reasonable, Gura conceded. Plastic gun bans? Reasonable. Licensing? "We don't have a problem with the concept of licensing," Gura said. Requirements to demonstrate competency with a gun? Reasonable. Background checks?

Oddly enough, all of those restrictions apply to concealed carry in TX (well, except for the "all plastic gun" ban), and yet I'm not at all prevented from acquiring a CHL and both owning and carrying a handgun. Somehow that doesn't strike me as what the Bradys are going for.

Exactly so.

And I lived for 50 years in a may issue state (RI) and I very well know the difference.

For instance, when Gura was asked if licensing could survive an individual rights + strict scrutiny interpretation he didn't just answer "yes". He gave a qualified response that amounted to, "if it was shall issue type licensing, yes, but if it was discretionary licensing, no." (though not in exactly those words of course)

Gura's concept of licensing and that of Helmke are poles apart. Helmke would "license" the RKBA completely out of existence.

I'm probably a minority on this board, but I myself have no problem with shall issue licensing to own or carry guns. And IMO I see no constitutional problem with it, just as with background checks, prohibition applied to violent felons (but not non-violent ones), bans on undetectable (i.e. all plastic or ceramic guns, and ammo of course, which do not presently exist), bans on heavy weapons like RPGs, Vulcan cannons, and all manner of other military equipment, etc.

But I think we should be able to keep and bear, meaning carry, guns almost anywhere we go in all 50 states and US Territories.

Heller alone won't get us there. And I would guess that the 2A alone won't get us there either. But an individual rights ruling that includes strict scrutiny will take us a good big step in that direction.

And I am optimistic that we will get a ruling pretty close to that come June.

 

[Wineoceros]

well, making it still cost one pretty penny will still pass. it did in NYC, it will (or can) in DC

Ahhh...but if SCOTUS rules the 2A guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that "arms" includes handguns, there may well be grounds for a challenge to such policies as unreasonable restrictions.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Quote:
well, making it still cost one pretty penny will still pass. it did in NYC, it will (or can) in DC

Ahhh...but if SCOTUS rules the 2A guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that "arms" includes handguns, there may well be grounds for a challenge to such policies as unreasonable restrictions.

Like a poll tax.

 

[Wineoceros]

Bingo. That is why getting an individual rights interpretation from SCOTUS is well worth every apparent "concession" Gura made. It lays the foundation that is so absolutely essential for long-term success for our side.

 

[yokel]

Your liberty is EVERYTHING!

Should the Supreme Court decline the opportunity to strike an important blow in the cause of liberty, then they must know that everything is on the table as options for preserving the blessings of liberty, and they must understand what that means.

 

[PaladinX13]

If there's no right, then you can basically pass any kind of law you want... but when there is a right, laws can be challenged when they violate that right either (real examples using discrimination):

1) Facially - The law expressly violates the right. "Blacks and whites cannot marry."
2) In Practice - Law is neutral but applied in a way that violates the right. "You must have a license to have a laundromat." (But licenses, in practice, are not granted to Chinese citizens)
3) In Purpose - Law is neutral but done to violate the right. "All male prisoners must have their hair no longer than 5 inches." (Done to humiliate Chinese by cutting their queues)

So once there's a right, you have a lot of grounds on which to attack present gun control legislation (not necessarily win, of course, but at least you have standing)... so it's all about first establishing that right.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Gura sucks!!!

He should have gotten Kelo overturned while he was before the Court.
If he wasn't such a horrible lawyer he might have even reversed Roe v Wade.

But NOOooooooo all he wanted to talk about was handguns in DC. What a moron.......

He's a traitor to freedom loving people everywhere!