Vin is unfairly tough here
In a "move that surprised some observers," the Chicago Tribune reported Wednesday, attorney Alan Gura, appearing before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the federal guard who sued the District of Columbia in 2003, claiming he feels unsafe because he's not allowed to keep his guns at home, "appeared to concede large chunks of his argument, moving away from an absolutist position on gun rights."
"He concurred, at one point, with Justice Stephen Breyer that a ban on machine guns or plastic guns" (whatever those are) "would be constitutional because those weren't the kind of arms normally carried by members of state militias in the early days of the United States."
Was it a failure of nerve under pressure, or did somebody get to this guy? . . .
I understand the sensitivity over the issue of machine guns before the Supreme Court. It was clearly a strategic decision. That decision is easier than some of the other statements that were made before the court. Personally, however, I would have said that there are no such things as plastic guns. Personally, when questions were raised about accidental gun deaths involving kids, I would have talked about the small number involved and that most of those involve adult male criminals where gun locks are irrelevant. Personally, I wouldn't have advocated that people use a gun safe (this last one I think was a real mistake). All that said, it is hard being up in front of the Supreme Court for the first time. I think that DC's lawyer actually did a good job given how hard of a case he had to make. The gun lock issue in particular makes me worried that we may win the battle over the individual rights issue, but lose the war regarding either the DC gun ban or the standard involved. If we lose it because of the gun lock question, I will be extremely disappointed. Again, all that said, at this point it doesn't make much sense to spend a lot of time worrying about things. We will know soon enough.
Labels: GunControl, SupremeCourt