Heller: Can we go back if we win?

[.cheese.]

Gura could have argued that eating children is legal and even if the court decided for Heller, what he said would have no legal weight.

*stops chewing*

wait.... it isn't?

----

I don't really care about the orgal arguments. I care about the decision.

 

[Andras]

If you are upset about Gura's oral statements, wouldn't Justice's Ginsberg and Kennedy reasoning that machineguns would be more protected then handguns carry more weight?

 

[Mojo-jo-jo]

i've never seen a plastic gun, please Mr. Heller, i would like you to show me an example of your so-called "plastic gun"

but you have to think: people like heller have no common sense, especially with guns.

I believe that some here are confused regarding the who's-who in this case.

Heller is a security guard that lives in the District of Columbia. He (and some other original plaintiffs) attempted to obtain permits to keep handguns in the District. He (and the others) were summarily denied permits and, in response, sued the District for relief. In the original case Parker (et.al) vs. District of Columbia, the district court found in favor of the plaintiffs (one of which is Heller) and overturned the District's handgun ban.

The District was unhappy with this decision and appealed the ruling of the district court to the US Supreme Court. Due to some procedural issues, other plaintiffs were determined not to have standing in the appeal, so the appellate case became District of Columbia vs. Heller. Time will tell how the USSC rules.

In short: Heller is on 'our' side.

While I'm not exactly thrilled with the way that Heller's attorney handled the questioning, it is very plausible that he (intelligently) made concessions on issues that are not specifically relevant to the ruling on this case. By making these concessions, it effectively takes them 'off the table' and no longer an argument in the context of this case. Since the real question addressed in this case is: "Does an individual have a right to keep a handgun in the District of Columbia?," the 'acceptableness' of machine guns and non-existent plastic guns is moot. The decision in this case will answer the question at hand, without addressing the context of machine guns.

This case, if decided in favor of the pro-gun argument, however can be used as precedent later. If it is determined that it is unconstitutional to ban/restrict a specific type of firearm (in this case, handguns) then it is by extension unconstitutional to restrict other types (such as machine guns). However, this question is for another case.

 

[TX1911fan]

Mojo-jo-jo, I think you and the others have nailed this. I was originally dismayed when I heard Gura make those statements, but the Court is not going to rule that the 2A is in individual right, BUT you can't have machineguns or plastic pistols. That is not what they are trying to decide, and hence what Gura said is of no import. By avoiding a prolonged discussion over "so you think private citizens should have machine guns, bazookas and nuclear bombs?" he was able to stay on point. When the machine gun case comes to the Court, if it does, no Justice is going to say "but Gura said regulations on machine guns was ok, so too bad." If they did, the response would be, "we don't care what Gura said, he's not here, this is not his case."

 

[.cheese.]

did you guys ever see "Balls of Fury" the movie?

If not... go see it. It's on DVD.

the character Feng's business is manufacturing guns, and one of the guns he makes is a clear plastic gun that is 100% plastic, I think including the ammunition, so it can't be detected by anything.

There's no such thing, but apparently many people don't know that.

 

[ozwyn]

I think Andras's comments are spot on. Ginsburg and Kennedy (peopel we were worried abotu on this case) seemed to more strongly support citizens rights to own machineguns than handguns.

I think the court was using the oral argument as a fishing expedition. I mean, reading the transcripts it is like they were looking for an excuse to really expand the scope of this case in a pro-gun-rights manner.

I think they will expand the case beyond the simpler Heller issue, but not far enough to make Sam Adams buy the whole supreme court a beer on general principle.