If you could ask robert levy a question....

[Soybomb]

what would it be?

I may be going to hear him speak in the morning and wouldn't mind having a couple questions in mind if the opportunity arises to ask them.

So far the main thing thats come to mind is mentioning that during the oral arguments there seemed to be plenty of focus on self defense with justices talking about times to remove trigger locks and the like. Could he speculate how a decision here might effect concealed carry legislation or the lack of concealed carry legislation in the long term.....

 

[Jim March]

How do we get incorporation against the states!?!

Is there any chance we'll get it out of Heller?

 

[ctdonath]

How & when do we get 922(o) overturned?

IIRC, I saw a letter from him (or was it Gura) basically saying "it ain't happening in the courts". As indicated in Heller oral arguments, there is little/no way to disallow categorical bans while allowing categorical bans (esp. when the latter is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind: modern standard-issue infantry arms). Problem is, legalizing modern MGs is a "third rail" issue which apparently SCOTUS will avoid/squelch at all costs. That may be the case, but just giving up for that reason is unacceptable.

This question cannot be merely dismissed out-of-hand because there are a LOT of people who are going to take it on the minute the Heller verdict is published. It WILL be an issue, there WILL be suits, and those who know how to win such cases had better take seriously the fact that if they don't get involved, a bunch of people who allegedly don't know what they're doing could really muck things up (and not just for MGs).

 

[Henry Bowman]

I know how I would answer, but how would he answer those who say they "threw machine guns under the bus" and surrendered any dispute as to registration etc.

 

[mons meg]

I wish I could find the interview Henry, but Levy basically answered that question previously by explaining how USSC arguments have their own particular style, and it wouldn't have done our case any good to argue all these peripheral issues, i.e. they were trying to win the case they brought.

Edit: I had conflated David Hardy (Of Arms and the Law) quoting Alan Gura. Not an interview with Levy, my bad.

Joe Olson and I were out drinking with Alan Gura last night, and he was getting a constant stream of emails from machinegun owners on his pda, denouncing his statement that full auto arms' possession might not be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

I think EVERYONE associated with this case who knows anything about appellate argument -- and I've talked to many in that class -- agreed that if you cannot come up with a 2nd Amendment test that lets the government do a lot of things with full autos, you lose. That's bottom line. You can have a second amendment for things other than full auto, or you can have no second amendment. Take your pick, there is no third alternative. Life isn't fair. I was very relieved when the Court showed signs of taking the view that Heller is asking to own a .38, not a Thompson, so we can deal with the full auto issue if and when someone brings a case (which I hope will be about ten years down the road).

 

[Flyboy]

When I go to law school, can I get an internship with you?