How a Young Lawyer Saved the Second Amendment

Gura was brilliant during oral arguments. My only gripe with him was that he threw machine guns under the bus when John Roberts invited him to include them in his argument.

I cringed when I heard that, but I understand what he did. A lot of times appeals judges set traps for overreaching on arguments. On the same point, Gura's client was Heller, and he had to do what was best for Heller first or he's violating his fidiciary duty. Bob Levy also wanted a narrow ruling, strictly on the gun ban itself.

I thought he did a good job. I thought Dellinger did a good job arguing the case for the bad guys. The only one I thought did a real poor job was Solicitor General's office and Clement. Everyone was ripping him apart.

Adding that unfortunate dependent clause about the "militia" was, IMO, designed to assuage the fears of the slaveholders and the mercantile class.

I don't think that's the issue. I think it more likely that Madison et al. would have feared that, without such language, the RKBA might be interpreted as only applying to a small subset of weapons, excluding some that would be necessary for effective military use.

You may be right, but don't forget one thing: it wasn't Lefty radicals like Hussein who first started placing "common sense" restrictions on the right to keep and bear. No, the first anti-gunners were "law and order" City Fathers (i.e the rich and famous), local police agencies and "right-wing" judges - all representing the interests of the wealthy- who feared what Old West desperados, Sacco and Vanzetti-type Anarchists and (later still) the Bolsheviks and Prohibition-era gangsters would do if they had ready access to firearms. I think that the Masters of the Plantation and the Captains of Commerce and Industry would have been much less apprehensive about militarily effective arms in the hands of an organized Militia than they would have been about a coach gun or a pocket pistol in the hands of a slave or an angry underling.

No, the first anti-gunners were "law and order" City Fathers (i.e the rich and famous), local police agencies and "right-wing" judges - all representing the interests of the wealthy- who feared what Old West desperados, Sacco and Vanzetti-type Anarchists and (later still) the Bolsheviks and Prohibition-era gangsters would do if they had ready access to firearms.

What do you mean "right-wing" judges? The terms have shifted meaning over the years. When power was dominated by private monied interests, authoritarians favored letting them keep their money while those seeking to tear down the existing power structure sought redistribution. Since redistributionists have gained power, now they want to bolster the government power structure and reinforce their positions.

In neither case would I expect the founders have been too pleased with authoritarian attempts at disarmament.

You have that right.
You cannot defend a right when your argument defends limits on that right.
The gun haters are taking things like the machine gun laws and running with it. They see it as the right to bear arms side once again compromising.
The Heller case should have been argued on the fact that any gun control law infringes on the right to bear arms.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.