• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Defense Lawyers in Blackwater Case Dismayed Over DOJ Appeal | Main | Committee Set to Vote Thursday on U.S. Attorney Nominee Machen »

January 25, 2010



theaton -- You sound like one of those people who believe Alan Gura should have fought to make it legal to carry machine guns in the schoolyard when he argued Heller. Give us a break.

In case you hadn't noticed, the 2nd Amendment had been all but declared null and void in huge parts of the U.S., which Alan Gura and Robert Levy began to reverse in Heller and are trying to continue to reverse in McDonald.

If you want to sit around in your little fantasyland and pretend that one day you'll wake up and all gun restrictions will have magically disappeared overnight, and in one fell swoop, you'll be waiting a long time.

Alan Gura is a 2nd Amendment hero; to even suggest otherwise is so silly I can hardly believe I spent 2 minutes typing up this reply.

Roger Keller

Alan Gura's brilliant Heller v. D.C. case! You have to be kidding. If I am not mistaken, he argued that government has the right to make reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms. If that is his case, he should be drummed out of the country. How did he ever get to argue before the Supreme Court?
Now these courts have it right.
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)] and,

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]


The NRA makes money by getting people to donate under the threat that the government will restrict gun ownership or take away privately owned guns. If the SCOTUS guarantees this right, then the NRA will likely lose donations as people become less concerned. If one were cynical, one might think that this internal conflict causes the NRA to try to thwart Guru, not enough for him to lose, but to get to a middle ground that would necessitate continued donations.

James Reisinger

I fail to understand why the NRA would want to do anything that might undermine the 'right to bear arms' under the 2nd Amendment? Perhaps I am missing the point???


Hey Joe, would that be Alan Gura's wonderful job at assisting the SCOTUS in helping the anti's further turn a right into a privilege? When you have to ask for permission from a government to do something, it is no longer a right but a privilege.

Etaoin Shrdlu

That should properly be "enemas", not "enemies".

I just hope the NRA doesn't screw things up too badly.


The NRA has turned into a parody of a parody. First they tried to chop off Alan Gura's brilliant Heller v. D.C. case at the knees. Now they've gone and hired a GUN-GRABBER as their attorney so they can horn into Gura's equally brilliant McDonald case. The NRA has redefined "shameless." With friends like them, who needs enemies?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad