Quote of the day—Alan Gura

A sober assessment of the Second Amendment’s present status must precede any attempt at predicting a “conservative” Supreme Court nominee’s impact on the Second Amendment’s future. Well before Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing, judges figured out that District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago are optional precedents. For all their powerful content, these decisions have in practice proven meaningless in the face of near-total resistance throughout the federal courts, in combination with the transparent lack of interest at One First Street in defending the Supreme Court’s eponymous position atop the judicial hierarchy. To be sure, some judges seek to apply Heller and McDonald in resolving Second Amendment disputes. But most treat the Supreme Court’s precedent as a hassle to surmount before rubber-stamping any legislative restriction on the right to bear arms. If not today, then very soon, it shouldn’t be too hard for any sufficiently dedicated and creative legislature to effectively ban firearms or just about any firearm-related activity, without worrying much about Heller. Appointing one “conservative” Justice to replace Antonin Scalia won’t improve matters. Indeed, “conservative” judges are part of the problem.

Alan Gura
September 6th, 2016
The Court after Scalia: The next “conservative” Justice may not save the Second Amendment
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]


5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Alan Gura

  1. “…in practice proven meaningless in the face of near-total resistance…”

    Two can play that game.

  2. As long as the Appeals Courts (9 of 13) are loaded with Liberal Democrat Judges, the Leftist Legislatures in certain States will continue to pass infringing laws and the Courts will uphold them. Good luck appealing to SCOTUS. A 4-4 tie will result in the infringing law being upheld.
    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled concealed carry is not a right, so by inference open carry is a right, but California banned open carry, so effectively there is no right to “bear arms” there. obama’s fault, he appointed those Liberal Judges and apparently Congress confirmed them. (Probably in his first 2 years as President when Democrats controlled everything.)

    • Perhaps in the first 2 years, perhaps not. Don’t make the mistake to assume that Republicans are a whole lot better. While they may not have an official party policy and a well established track record of hostility to the right to bear arms, a whole lot of republicans are somewhere between “wobbly” and actively hostile. Consider the republican senators who co-sponsored the grossly unconstitutional “no fly list” gun ban, one of whom is unfortunately still my senator.
      The reality is that both major parties are after power, and are actively hostile to anything that stands in their way. There are some small differences in nuance between the two, but no more than that. For example, the vast majority of the goals of either party (at least 90% if not 99%) clearly and obviously violates the plain English text of the Constitution.

  3. Removing his personal swipes at gun law, he is essentially right. Nobody, including the courts, gives a rat’s backside about the law any more. I know I don’t. The rule of law is dead.

Comments are closed.