Like, for instance, the Ninth Circuit’s Hickman v Block.

What is that then Kevin? Life of a thousand band-aids?

Like I said in the previous post, just recently submitted, the legal system was used, properly, to elevate blacks from farm implements to whole citizens.

I can see the parallels that Kevin is making here.

Gura is trying to get a very specific ruling: that the RKBA is an individual right. He can afford to toss essentially everything else overboard in pursuit of that goal. In future cases, he can assert anything he denied in Heller: he doesn’t represent himself but his clients; ergo, so long as he has different clients there’s no hypocrisy in the eyes of the law.

Gura wants an individual rights decision – period. As someone else said in that same comment thread:

Even a narrow win is better than a reversal. It firmly puts the individual right in place, and the argument then goes to scope. For those of us living under the 9th Circus – that will be a huge improvement. Also, this was how Marshall as a litigator overturned Plessy – by starting with small wins before the home run in Brown. Be patient all – our opponents learned years ago that the death of a thousand cuts was how to kill the 2nd. We must use the same approach to build it up.

Amen.

Clearly machine guns can be pointed at a single person, and, in the form of SMGs and rifle style machine guns (M16), are the direct descendant of the assault weapon of the day, the musket. Crew served machine guns are “crew served” because someone has to carry ammo for the things. They are still operated by one person, and pointed and fired just like any other firearm. The whole crew served thing is a wrong turn. A machine gun is a machine gun.

I agree that it was an attempt to scare white people. I think it failed.

I think the reasonableness standard of the handgun laws in the District, which are not completely banned, because there is licensed handguns in the District of Columbia for law enforcement, retired law enforcement, federal law enforcement, security agencies. So, there is not a complete ban on handguns.

It would be like charging $1,000 for a voting license, then arguing that since rich people can vote, it’s OK, since there is not a “complete” ban on voting.

Or passing a law that say only government employees can vote.

Or only people with a 4-year college degree.

Or…well, you get the picture.

I’ll try to get the video of this twit up later.

Some were privately owned, too.

BTW, Sebastian linked to NRA’s Heller page, where there’s a link to the transcript [pdf]

The founders were aware of all of these weapons and would have immediately recognized a crew served browning machine gun as an “arm.” Similarly, the modern assault rifle would be seen as a direct lineal descendant of both the kentucky rifle and the shotgun (semi auto for long range, burst or auto for close range like the shotgun).

I think you have to be a New Jersey governor to do that…

There’s your lineal descent.

It’s just like his argument against Congress redefining people out of the Second Amendment… what good is it then? –What good is the Second Amendment if certain arms can be regulated out of commonplace?

Didn’t he operate one or more crew served guns by himself?