The ground breaking Second Amendment “Heller ” case was heard today by the US Supreme Court.
Alan Gura, who argued on behalf of Dick Heller, a Washington DC security guard who wanted to be allowed to own a handgun, made some peculiar and perhaps astonishing, assertions.
In defense of the right to own a handgun, Gura (who we have met and seems to be an intelligent and competent attorney) suggested that the Second Amendment did NOT protect an individual’s right to own a machine gun.
All of us who are familiar with the Miller decision, (the case usually noted as the last major Second Amendment case taken up by SCOTUS) know that any rational reading of that decision would require you to conclude that in fact, machine guns are exactly what are protected by the Second Amendment. As such, Gura’s arguments seemed extremely counterproductive and may have well undermined his own case.
The Miller decision was faulty on several grounds, not the least of which, that Miller had no representation in court and the decision was based on the mistaken belief by the court that shotguns had no military use. The ignorance of all the participants in today’s hearing of basic facts about firearms works very much against us, and may, in many ways replicate the flawed conclusions the Court came to in Miller.
For a transcript of the hearing click here.
For more info and important links, click here.
For info direct from the lawyers who argued for gun rights, click here.