View Single Post
Old September 5, 2011, 12:57 AM   #12
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,070
I swear I think Gura keeps getting better. The way he layers his arguments, the clarity, the matter of fact style, the subtle (or sometimes not) sarcasm, all make for a compelling read. He exposes and exploits the omissions and misdirections from the opposing side. He doesn't shrink from any case law the might first appear to undermine his arguments, and goes on to reveal deeper meaning that bolster them.

Just for fun:
Quote:
First, while the government expressly concedes that it “do[es] not dispute that Plaintiff Schrader ‘presently intends to purchase and possess a handgun and long gun for self-defense it nonetheless demands that his motion also spell out “[w]hat specific type(s) of firearms (including but not limited to the manufacturer, model, and any modifications) Plaintiff Schrader intends to purchase and possess and the details concerning when, where, or how Plaintiff Schrader would purchase these firearms in the future.”
Quote:
But this demand lacks merit. “[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582 (2008). At the time of the founding, “all firearms constituted ‘arms.’” Id. at 581 (citation omitted). And the government’s firearms ban against Schrader in this case is absolute—it does not ban Schrader from having only particular firearms, nor does it prevent him from buying arms at certain times, buying arms from certain vendors, or using particular methods of payment to do so. Thus, it is of no relevance what particular gun model Schrader would choose, where he would buy it, whether he would do so on a Wednesday or Thursday, or whether he would use Visa, Mastercard, or a jar of pennies as payment.
maestro pistolero is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04936 seconds with 7 queries