Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
And the NRA Reply Brief as well.
It's not the 2nd Amendment arguments that worry me. Due Process incorporation is in the bag. A 1st-year law clerk could successfully argue for it.Although I am not a lawyer, as many of you may be, it is my contention that NRA's reduction of Gura's time is not likely to substantially harm the pro-2nd Amendment arguments being presented, and may strengthen them.
Actually, in Gura's case, he didn't agree to any restrictions. The Justices asked questions about issues that fell outside of the central argument in Heller, and he refused to go down that road.Clement may not have argued as strongly for the RKBA as we all would have liked in Heller, but neither did Gura. They both accepted restrictions that most of us would probably disagree with.
Which is why I really hope the NRA has thoroughly briefed him, and that they're on the same page. The guy arguing for the case wasn't present for the process leading up to it, and I hope he's carrying the same torch.If Clement accepts some of these "reasonable restrictions" that the NRA opposes in order to win this particular case, all of the NRA haters on the gun boards will finally have their proof that the NRA really does hate guns.
Another homerun from Gura on the Reply brief. Simple, direct and straightforward.
A paper based on little more than a Google search should not be used against decades of detailed, disciplined scholarly work by some of the Nation’s leading legal historians.
Not Gura, the NRA counsel: Halbrook, Clement, etc.Another homerun from Gura on the Reply brief. Simple, direct and straightforward.
He did go down it a ways:Actually, in Gura's case, he didn't agree to any restrictions. The Justices asked questions about issues that fell outside of the central argument in Heller, and he refused to go down that road.
MR. GURA: Well, my response is that the government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use. There is no question of that.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: That are not appropriate to?
MR. GURA: That are not appropriate to civilian use.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: For example?
MR. GURA: For example, I think machine guns: It's difficult to imagine a construction of Miller, or a construction of the lower court's opinion, that would sanction machine guns or the plastic, undetectable handguns that the Solicitor General spoke of.
MR. GURA: That's true, Your Honor. However, better safe storage approach is the one used by the majority of jurisdictions, I believe, that do have such laws, which is to require safe storage, for example, in a safe. And that is a reasonable limitation. It's a strict scrutiny limitation. Whatever standard of review we may wish to apply, I think, would encompass a safe storage provision.
MG bans. Safe storage laws. Licensing. Screw all that.JUSTICE GINSBURG: If there's a fundamental right, what about licensing? One piece -- we've talked about trigger locks, we've talked about the ban on handguns, but there is also a requirement that there be
a license for possession of a handgun. Assuming you're right on the first question, that you couldn't flatly ban handguns, what about a requirement that you obtain a license to carry -- to have a handgun?
MR. GURA: Justice Ginsburg, that would depend on the licensing law itself. We don't have a problem with the concept of licensing so long as it's done --
JUSTICE GINSBURG: What about this very law? If you take out the ban -- there is a law on the books. It's one of the ones that you challenged. It's section 22-4504(a). Wouldn't that be okay -- would that be okay? It says that you have to have a license to carry.
MR. GURA: Yes, so long as the licensing law is not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner, so long as there are some hopefully objective standards and hopefully some process for --
JUSTICE GINSBURG: It just says -- it says you have to get a license if you want to possess a gun. What kind of standard? It just says you have to have a license.
MR. GURA: Well, the government could set reasonable standards for that, Your Honor. The government could require, for example, knowledge of the State's use-of-force laws. They can require some sort of vision test. They could require, perhaps, demonstrated competency. And those are the types of things that we sometimes see; background checks, of course. Those are going to be reasonable licensing requirements.
However, if the license requirement is we only wanted to give licenses to people who look a certain way or depends on how we feel or if the licensing office is only open Thursdays at 3:00 in the morning -- I mean, it all depends on the implementation. And --
Indeed. I don't think even Clement, let alone Gura will make that mistake again. They have taken a lot of heat for that, I think they will have a better answer ready next time.MG bans. Safe storage laws. Licensing. Screw all that.
Not Gura, the NRA counsel: Halbrook, Clement, etc.
There are two Reply briefs. One by Gura/SAF for McDonald and one by the NRA for their plaintiffs. I was commenting on Gura's brief since I read it first. I haven't finished Halbrook's yet; but it is also good.
Gura just has a very distinct style in his briefs that I like. Very clean prose and direct. I'd like to pay him to write about something I object to just to see if I am still as impressed by his writing.
Agreed.green-grizzly said:"MG bans. Safe storage laws. Licensing. Screw all that."
It may have been a blind spot at one time, but I don't think we'll hear any more of that or any more MG crap from either Gura, or Clement. They have taken a lot of heat for that, and they should have."plastic, undetectable handguns"
Perhaps, or perhaps not.htjiang said:I'm not sure that presumption is fair.