The pro-gun rights brief in the blockbuster case of D.C. v. Heller is being filed today at the Supreme Court, and in case anyone had any doubts, the lead counsel will be still be Alan Gura of the D.C. and Virginia firm Gura & Possessky — not any of the bigfoot lawyers who have been suggested to argue the case instead.
Robert Levy, the Cato Institute scholar who bankrolled the lawsuit against the strict D.C. handgun ordinance, was unequivocal today. "Alan will be arguing this case," says Levy. "He is a very bright guy, no one knows the issues better than he does, he has been successful in the case thus far, and besides — it was part of the deal." Levy explains that when he hired Gura (pictured above) at "subsistence wages" to launch the lawsuit several years ago, the agreement was that if the case advanced to the Supreme Court — no small feat in itself — Gura would argue it.
Levy has stood behind Gura before. But a fresh round of rumors lately has reflected some anxiety in conservative circles about leaving such a historic argument in the hands of a Supreme Court novice. Theodore Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher is one name that had been suggested as a replacement.
Levy says he has given full and careful consideration to the doubters. "It's not surprising that there has been a clamor to substitute Alan with a more seasoned litigator," says Levy. "But it won't happen."
The brief, writing, logic and style are superb. Alan Gura, et al. have done their homework and make DC's brief look like a hodgepodge of twisted logic. This case is really one the most important cases of the decade and far more important than many would understand or admit. Disappointed at the Bush administration brief, basically supporting the ban just to cover perceived challenges to existing federal laws. Thank you Levy for giving Alan Gura credit and support. In the case of DC, I fear we have met the enemy and he is US, those who would take away firearms from law-abiding citizens of our republic.
Posted by: curtis41 | February 07, 2008 at 04:08 PM
Ted Olson? The guy who argued against Emerson and Bean? So principles and advocacy for founding intent on 2A don't matter, just get a veteran mercenary?
I understand Alan Morrison is looking for a way back into this--why don't we just cut to the chase and turn it over to him?
Posted by: David Codrea | February 05, 2008 at 03:58 PM
As a Jewess in the US, I fully support the trust placed in and loyalty shown toward Mr. Gura. As to the Heller case itself, it is important to remember that America wasn't won with a registered gun! And criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk. That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!!
Posted by: Wendy Weinbaum | February 05, 2008 at 01:12 PM
Winning this case is more important than ever, considering who might become the next president(i.e., regarding the two top contenders for each party). Sounds like Mr. is the one for the job. I believe he'll do his best.
Posted by: Heart of Dixie | February 05, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Mr.Gura knows this case inside out,to use a substitute would be a risk,and we all know how important this is.
Posted by: J.Chapman | February 05, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Mr. Gura has done an outstanding job thus far and deserves the lionshare of the credit for getting this case to the Supreme Court in the first place (despite the wishes of the NRA and others). Anyone who has been following the case closely and reading the briefs should be quite pleased that he will be the one arguing the case as his work product has been excellent.
Kudos to Levy for keeping him in there...
Posted by: Peter B. | February 04, 2008 at 08:10 PM