Every one calm down. Breath.
Ok, my thoughts are thus:
Gura was arguing for the first time in front of the Supremes. He was nervous. He said too much. And he gave too much to the bad guys. I don’t understand why he felt the need to bring up machine guns and talk in detail about them or why he talked about handguns in that light. He seemed to be willing to throw too many bones to the bad guys.
And to all you yammering on about throwing machine gun owners under the bus, deal with it. This case wasn’t about machine guns. This case is an incremental approach to winning the long war on gun control. You were thrown under the bus in 1986. Speaking of buses, if you drive one 20 miles in, it’s still 20 miles out. And this case represents the first couple miles of that trip back out. Cowboy up and accept that or scream ‘SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED’ at passers-by if you must. But it’s not helping. I think Gura’s move on MGs was small ball. They are not at issue and the whole point was to get the court to affirm a right to arms. Bring up MGs was good strategy on the anti-gun side as they knew that MGs 1) scare white people; and 2) will piss off the GOAers. Divide and conquer.
Anyone who expected Gura to walk in and demand M4s for all of us wasn’t paying attention.
If we go in demanding all or nothing, we’ll get nothing.
The Solicitor General did a good job of arguing the individual rights stuff but his standard of review is too much. I’m guessing there were some talks in the administration prior to the case.