"Gura tossed machineguns under the bus! What is he, a lawyer for the Bradys?!?"

[jlbraun]

I've read more than a few people saying this here.

In case you forgot, this case was about HANDGUNS:

Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

The question being ruled on was the right to own a handgun in your own home. I read the transcripts, the justices were trying to trip Gura up and make him broaden the scope of his case to machineguns or an outright NFA challenge - which if he had fallen for it, would have resulted in a collective rights ruling - because machineguns are clearly military weapons.

Secondly, if Gura had fallen for it, entire reams of amicus legal briefs would have been wiped out - because all those briefs were talking about was the question before the Court about handguns. Broadening to machineguns would have left Gura out in no-mans-land without a brief to stand on. Cases are decided on briefs, not on oral arguments.

Thirdly, handguns are the biggest boogeyman to the Bradys - handguns are used in more crimes than rifles or shotguns. Affirming the right to own a handgun absolutely buries the Bradyites, and all they are left with is screeching about rifles and shotguns, which makes them look like lunatics because long guns are so rarely used in crime. Gura did good by confining the case to handguns and other common long arms.

Fourthly, it's obvious to the judges how similar the DC, Chicago, NYC, and 922(o) bans are - and they are aware that all it's going to take is copy-pasting the Heller case to knock those down. They're probably also aware of Gura's intentions to knock down the Chicago ban. They might take a shortcut and incorporate.

So get a grip. The sky ain't falling. I'm looking forward to an ironclad ruling on handguns. That alone will make me happy. Y'all should be too.

 

[buzz_knox]

I read the transcripts, the justices were trying to trip Gura up and make him broaden the scope of his case to machineguns or an outright NFA challenge - which if he had fallen for it, would have resulted in a collective rights ruling - because machineguns are clearly military weapons.

Secondly, if Gura had fallen for it, entire reams of amicus legal briefs would have been wiped out - because all those briefs were talking about was the question before the Court about handguns. Broadening to machineguns would have left Gura out in no-mans-land without a brief to stand on. Cases are decided on briefs, not on oral arguments.

Exactly. He argued the case that was before the Court, not what everyone thought the case was.

Besides, if Heller goes as hoped, it can be combined with Miller .

 

[LawBot5000]

Because machine guns weren't before the court. Notice that Breyer and the SG were hammering on machine guns because the "scare white people" tactic is all they have left at the moment. Gura just said anything to quickly get them off the subject. It seems sloppy and weak, but it was actually the least bad way of dealing with a hostile appellate judge.

I don't think they will foreclose litigating the 86 ban. I didn't sense a lot of apprehension about machine guns. The 5 justices on our side seemed pretty dismissive of the SG/Breyer's concerns about plastic guns and armored bullets.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Justice Scalia brought up machine guns. It's on HIS mind, at least.

Woody

 

[Mike OTDP]

Probably because he wants a Thompson

 

[divemedic]

When cert was granted, the question was phrased by SCOTUS like this:

Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

The ruling will strike down the law, and the door is open for a lot more cases. Start giving money to the various organizations that will be litigating now- here comes the pro gun counter attack.

Cato (from what I have read) is planning a legal attack on NYC's (Second Circuit) laws next. I would also expect Chicago (7th circuit), possibly Maryland(4th circuit), and 922(o) (Federal Circuit) to face challenges. California would also be a possible target, but being in the Ninth Circuit, it would not be a wise move for anyone.

 

[Vibe]

Actually all it would take (or should take) is for the "evidence", "not submitted before the court" in Miller - IE that a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18" is of use to the militia (IE Military)- to be submitted before the court. It wasn't presented in Miller only because Miller was a one sided decision, the defendant was not represented (since he was deceased at the time). The "evidence" is readily available, since trenchguns of all types had been used before Miller and fairly widely used even afterwards. Not only in the Military, but also in Law enforcement. Clearly demonstrating their "use to the Militia" and satisfying the Miller test.

 

[ctdonath]

Some of us just wish he had a more elegant way of disposing of the "this case isn't about MGs" problem than just throwing 'em under a bus.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

But you have to have someone who is harmed by the law to bring a challenge to the law. Thus, wouldn't you have to find someone who is willing to saw off a shotgun barrel to less than 18 inches in length and attempt to transport it across state lines, in violation of the NFA of 34? Any volunteers?

I do agree that there was ample evidence around that trench guns were used for military duty in WW1. The USSC seemed to use the fact that no one presented that evidence to THEM, as a loophole to avoid having to rule on the case. They probably also knew then, that machine guns were in common military and civilian use at the time. So they were able to skip around having to declare the NFA34 as being unconstitutional.

Now, it seems, some justices are not worried about machine guns being in common use because the NFA34 and the FOPA86 made them too expensive and rare to own. Talk about self fulfilling prophecies.

Still, the Heller case was not about machine guns. We first need to get the USSC on official record claiming that the 2nd A GUARANTEES an individual right to keep and bear arms. What the term "arms" means, will have to be decided at a later date. But certainly, handguns are arms, which are in common use at this time by the military and by civilians. It seems as if it would be hard for the justices to ignore those facts. However, I don't trust them to always act with logic when they are dealing with public policy and public "safety" issues.

 

[Jamie C.]

The machine guns I've seen and handled are pretty tough... they can take being chucked under a bus for a while.

Seriously... folks need to learn to be more patient, and more focused.


J.C.

 

[LAR-15]

Not to mention since Miller the standard military arm has changed to one that is a 'machine gun' under Federal law and the law of most states.

 

[BattleChimp Potemkin]

Well, its cases like this that cause paranoia and fear rampant in our communities, causing folks to either step up letters to government (pro or anti) or stock up on ammunition. I think that this gives folks a bad image (hoard all we can before the "ban" comes b/c our gun community is based on fear, not enthusiasm). That last statement may get folks mad at me (yeah, I know), however, look around at gun shows and what is talked about in gun shops all over. Fear based rhetoric (what if the economy fails, what if the SHTF, what if the price of gold keeps going up, the "evil" chinese are buying all our resources, etc...). Its easy to put a infinite amount of fear into a community that is very prone to it and essentially industries gear towards fueling that paranoia.

+1 Jaimie C
We need to focus and keep writing letters, talking to folks about pro-gun legislation, rather than freting about something the average gun user/owner doesnt need, only want. I would rather have a sensible means to defend myself (handgun or decent rifle) than attempting to throw the dice on something I really dont need (and jeopardizing the entire issue).

 

[kfranz]

rather than freting about something the average gun user/owner doesnt need, only want. I would rather have a sensible means to defend myself (handgun or decent rifle) than attempting to throw the dice on something I really dont need (and jeopardizing the entire issue).

You have conceded that there is a "need" test. You don't "need" any of the things that you posses. I understand your concern about jeopardizing everything to protect something that few posses. Do NOT let the concept of NEED be what comforts that concern.

 

[AirForceShooter]

I listened to the whole thing. Frankly I thought all the lawyers were horrible. On both sides.

And the press conference after was a disaster for us. All Heller could say was " an armed society is a polite society". That's it? didn't anybody prep this guy.
The DC types talked like they knew they lost and were looking for an out and that was "restrictions" .

AFS

 

[Thumper]

The unfortunate thing is that some of those on our side let their emotions cloud their sensibilities sometimes. It looks like Gura played this exactly right.

All we wanted out of this thing (and the best thing we could have gotten) is an Individual ruling and for Heller to win. It looks like we might have exactly that.

Everything else is to be argued at a later date.

I'm disappointed at the lack of sophistication of some of our members.

 

[TexasRifleman]

And the press conference after was a disaster for us

This will be decided outside of press conferences. We always take a beating in the media anyway no matter who is speaking.

 

[ArmedBear]

since Miller the standard military arm has changed to one that is a 'machine gun' under Federal law and the law of most states.

Interestingly, Ginsburg, who I really thought was pretty spaced-out and out of touch last term, was most cognizant of this fact, and that the "Miller Test", combined with an individual rights ruling, would all but guarantee that any law-abiding American could buy an M4.

This is a strange wrinkle. This case could end up having the unexpected effect of overturning Miller, which isn't even ostensibly before the court. Or, the justices could even find that we DO have the right to buy a new M4, but that the government can make it difficult (i.e. the NFA somehow fulfills the Militia Clause).

Either way, having listened to Gura and now almost done reading the whole transcript start to finish, I think that what he's really doing is trying to defuse the diversion that the SG wants to inject into the case. Gura wants an individual-rights ruling. He's not trying to argue about exactly which guns are protected, since he is arguing on behalf of the most common defensive firearm by far. Furthermore, he recognizes that, whatever he says about machine guns will not matter to the ruling, since the case isn't about machine guns. So, when he says, as an attorney, that something "would be acceptable to us", that means that he's trying to win the case at hand.

Like it or not, this is what he's doing.

 

[TexasRifleman]

i.e. the NFA somehow fulfills the Militia Clause).

I really think that is the best approach to this, in our lifetimes at least.

No one is going to overturn NFA or anthing remotely close to that.

The target for now should be Hughes.
Get the NFA registry opened up at $200 a pop then worry about the rest later.

It took from 1939 to 2008 for a Second Amendment case to get to the Supremes. They are not going to be lined up one a year after this.

Let our children worry about overturning NFA completely, while they enjoy shooting full autos that we were able to leave them with a tax stamp.

Overturning the Hughes Amendment would be an incredible feat, but one that is doable politcally.
Machine gun ownership is already "legal", getting rid of the May 86 mess is just paperwork.

This whole "all or nothing" doesn't work and that should be getting clear by now, even to the hardest heads among us.

 

[everallm]

One of the more positive statements which seems to be somewhat ignored is the majority are apparently of the opinion that the original bugbear "Miller" is at best incomplete or flawed and bears little relevance.

Simply getting this kicked into touch potentially opens up a very interesting can of worms.

We are now finally moving to "It's not about the militia !!!!"

 

[ArmedBear]

Another wrinkle:

When Dellinger says that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the hobby of gun collecting, CJ Roberts immediately rebukes that notion in the form of a question: "Why isn't that covered by the provision that you have the right to keep arms?" When Dellinger responds with a dubious explanation, Scalia moves in for the rhetorical kill, and, of all people, Kennedy backs him up.

I see this is somewhat good news. One argument (a quite legitimate one, actually) for opening the full-auto registry is that those who do go through the trouble tend to be squeaky-clean gun collectors in higher income brackets. These guns are never used in crimes, and they're used as toys and curios. Knob Creek is hardly a gathering of criminals.

This thing has more wrinkles than a cheap suit. What's also interesting is to hear justices like Ginsburg turning into the Uber-Originalist and talking about what something meant in the 18th Century. Some legal types think this is the most interesting aspect of all.

 

[SoCalShooter]

That was the justice, the problem is that this will go partially in our direction and other part will go towards states rights.

 

[OMGWTFBBQ]

We can't take the whole thing at once, it's not like one day you could buy a machine gun through the mail with a fake name and the next day you had draconian measures such as those in place in D.C., we can't expect to get everything overnight, we have to chip away at all the BS legislation the antis have managed to pass over the past century a case at a time.

 

[Thumper]

Interestingly, Ginsburg, who I really thought was pretty spaced-out and out of touch last term, was most cognizant of this fact, and that the "Miller Test", combined with an individual rights ruling, would all but guarantee that any law-abiding American could buy an M4.

AB, she was very well aware. That's why she kept bringing it up. She was trying to goad Gura down that path. If he would have strayed, it would have really hurt Heller's chances at a win and especially an Individual ruling.

Gura avoided the trap, but unfortunately some here don't see Ginsberg's actions for what they were.

 

[Vibe]

AB, she was very well aware. That's why she kept bringing it up. She was trying to goad Gura down that path. If he would have strayed, it would have really hurt Heller's chances at a win and especially an Individual ruling.

Gura avoided the trap, but unfortunately some here don't see Ginsberg's actions for what they were.

Meaning she interprets the Constitution correctly but doesn't like what it's saying?

 

[PercyShelley]

This thing has more wrinkles than a cheap suit. What's also interesting is to hear justices like Ginsburg turning into the Uber-Originalist and talking about what something meant in the 18th Century. Some legal types think this is the most interesting aspect of all.

Could this be an artifact of how the courts are run? As I understand it, a Supreme Court justice doesn't owe anyone anything, and thus they can be as idealistic when making interpretations as their conscience will allow.