Gura SUCKED!!!!!!!! WTF?????

mudshark · Post by **mudshark** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:43 pm

Seriously, is this the BEST our side can do? WTF? People on THIS board would've argued better than this dolt did....

I swear, I'm actually starting to think this was all a fucking set-up now... I think this guy's on Brady's payroll or something. It's the only thing that explain that kind of incompetance. It's gotta be intentional...

WTF??????????????

3101 · Post by **3101** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:52 pm

Judge on TV just said he thinks the vote will 6-3 as an individual right....

keatsabn · Post by **keatsabn** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:13 pm

Was that the same Judge that said with the amount of evidence there is against OJ the juror’s will have to convict? Oh I’m sorry that fucker got off. Lawyers and child molesters they are cut from the same cloth. With all the lawyers that the NRA has or that are pro 2nd amendment, that was the best we came up with. s--t! My12 year old could have made a better argument. Were fucked

renegade · Post by **renegade** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:17 pm

mudshark wrote:Seriously, is this the BEST our side can do? WTF? People on THIS board would've argued better than this dolt did....

I swear, I'm actually starting to think this was all a fucking set-up now... I think this guy's on Brady's payroll or something. It's the only thing that explain that kind of incompetance. It's gotta be intentional...

WTF??????????????

The other side sucked more though.

Conqueror · Post by **Conqueror** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:42 pm

I wasn't able to watch, but I hear they tore Dillinger a new one and were fairly sympathetic to Gura despite his moderate ineptness.

Conqueror · Post by **Conqueror** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:48 pm

There's a transcript up already:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_argu ... 07-290.pdf

Justice Scalia wrote:JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I want to kiss that man.

Hush · Post by **Hush** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:17 pm

I was listening to that Gura and saying to myself WTF, WTF Who's side is he on?

It sounded like everything was settled in a smoke filled back room weeks ago and this was the dog and pony show.

I was getting pissed so I shut the tv off and left the room.

Conqueror · Post by **Conqueror** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:31 pm

You guys have to remember that Gura's job is winning for his client. He's not out to redefine 80 years of constitutional jurisprudence. If his team's best strategy is to concede that the Second Amendment is a militia-related right, but then prove that handguns are militia-related and therefore must be allowed to civilians, then that's the argument he will make.

carry-a-big-stick · Post by **carry-a-big-stick** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:38 pm

Conqueror wrote:You guys have to remember that Gura's job is winning for his client. He's not out to redefine 80 years of constitutional jurisprudence. If his team's best strategy is to concede that the Second Amendment is a militia-related right, but then prove that handguns are militia-related and therefore must be allowed to civilians, then that's the argument he will make.

but aren't machine guns militia-related? He said that civilians don't need the right to own a machine gun.

lawless · Post by **lawless** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:00 pm

Gura has never argued in front of the supreme court either. He was ok even though he was very green. Dellinger got ripped a new one. He eve said " well im going to take a seat for a while" and they made him stay. He could barely finish a sentence without Justice Scalia or Kennedy interrupting him and basically calling him an idiot.

ctdonath · Post by **ctdonath** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:34 pm

Gura's problem was that he was getting pushed to the inside corner of an electric fence, the convergence of two issues that would expand the case far beyond its narrow focus: licensing and machineguns. His goal was to make handgun not illegal in DC, and to make functional firearms not illegal in DC. This invariably leads to discussion of licensing and machineguns, which are presumed reasonable and outrageous respectively. To address those two issues properly - to say that licensing is unconstitutional, and that machineguns should be unregulated - would overwhelm the central focus of the case and doom it to failure on our part. Gura tried hard to stay away from those by granting whatever ground needed to be ceded to satiate those who would have freaked otherwise.

Agreed, he could have handled those issues much better. Then again, that's probably the best argument a whole lotta money & talent could buy under the circumstances. This particular battle MUST be won; we can win the others later, and thus the war in due time.

hemi · Post by **hemi** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:46 pm

My favorite part was when they asked Gura if they should re-write the 2nd to read "shall not be unreasonably infringed". You know you're screwed when the judges all laugh @ your expense.

Now we just gotta sit around and sweat it out till June.

Post by **silencertalk** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:48 pm

Why use a lawyer who has not argued before this court before?

bmanka · Post by **bmanka** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:49 pm

Gura's performance sucked...big time, but I think he will win the DC case based on it's merits alone. The biggest issue is that he pitched a line more consistent with the SG's position than the "strict scrutiny" level of review that he professed in his brief.

I was pleased with Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy...somewhat with Alito...Thomas, as usual, didn't ask a single question. I was disgusted with Gura. Even the architect of the challenge, Bob Levy, waffled on Strict Scrutiny in the post hearing press inquiries saying that their case always promoted a concept of reasonable gun regulation. The problem with "reasonable gun regulation" is that there is no bright-line standard for evaluation and it opens us to the future whims of politically motivated fear campaigns.

I am optimistic that the SCOTUS will recognize the individual rights perspective. Hopefully the majority will draft an opinion that establishes some guidance on what "Arms" are protected by the Second Amendment.

lawless · Post by **lawless** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:58 pm

We can only hope but damn, Gura has no business being in front of that court. Our only hope is that the judges have sense to vote for the way it is obviously written.

renegade · Post by **renegade** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:06 pm

Conqueror wrote:You guys have to remember that Gura's job is winning for his client. He's not out to redefine 80 years of constitutional jurisprudence. If his team's best strategy is to concede that the Second Amendment is a militia-related right, but then prove that handguns are militia-related and therefore must be allowed to civilians, then that's the argument he will make.

Agreed, he is there to win for his client regardless of who he has to throw under the bus, and there is nothing wrong with agreeing with certain justices even if you really do not agree, if you think it will help you with your case.

All in all, though, I do not think he did a good job of arguing his own case. Good thing for him, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy did!

lawless · Post by **lawless** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:12 pm

renegade wrote:
Conqueror wrote:You guys have to remember that Gura's job is winning for his client. He's not out to redefine 80 years of constitutional jurisprudence. If his team's best strategy is to concede that the Second Amendment is a militia-related right, but then prove that handguns are militia-related and therefore must be allowed to civilians, then that's the argument he will make.
Agreed, he is there to win for his client regardless of who he has to throw under the bus, and there is nothing wrong with agreeing with certain justices even if you really do not agree, if you think it will help you with your case.

All in all, though, I do not think he did a good job of arguing his own case. Good thing for him, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy did!

Even if he did not believe in what he was fighting for and he is just getting paid, this is potentionally one of the biggest court cases in the short US history. He could make millions if he wins this one. Youd think that would be motivation enough.

renegade · Post by **renegade** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:15 pm

lawless101aa wrote: Even if he did not believe in what he was fighting for and he is just getting paid, this is potentionally one of the biggest court cases in the short US history. He could make millions if he wins this one. Youd think that would be motivation enough.

+1

If he turns out to be the lawyer who successfully got the USSC to rule an individual RKBA, he is golden.

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:15 pm

carry-a-big-stick wrote:
Conqueror wrote:You guys have to remember that Gura's job is winning for his client. He's not out to redefine 80 years of constitutional jurisprudence. If his team's best strategy is to concede that the Second Amendment is a militia-related right, but then prove that handguns are militia-related and therefore must be allowed to civilians, then that's the argument he will make.
but aren't machine guns militia-related? He said that civilians don't need the right to own a machine gun.

AMEN.

Gura is not the best man for this job.

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:16 pm

lawless101aa wrote:Gura has never argued in front of the supreme court either. He was ok even though he was very green. Dellinger got ripped a new one. He eve said " well im going to take a seat for a while" and they made him stay. He could barely finish a sentence without Justice Scalia or Kennedy interrupting him and basically calling him an idiot.

+1

Those Justices argued more for gun right then Gura did IMHO.

lawless · Post by **lawless** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:17 pm

ArevaloSOCOM wrote:
lawless101aa wrote:Gura has never argued in front of the supreme court either. He was ok even though he was very green. Dellinger got ripped a new one. He eve said " well im going to take a seat for a while" and they made him stay. He could barely finish a sentence without Justice Scalia or Kennedy interrupting him and basically calling him an idiot.
+1

Those Justices argued more for gun right then Gura did IMHO.

Absolutly, Gura is effectivly losing his own arguement. Thank god for the judges picking up that lakceys slack.

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:18 pm

04hemi wrote:My favorite part was when they asked Gura if they should re-write the 2nd to read "shall not be unreasonably infringed". You know you're screwed when the judges all laugh @ your expense.

Now we just gotta sit around and sweat it out till June.

That was funny.........

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:21 pm

Why pussy foot around though?

This chance might not happen for another 70...............repeat 70 years.

Why pussy foot and not call a spade a spade.

Yes MG's are military weapons = lawful to own, thus can not be banned.

Same for shotguns.

Same for pistols.

Playing this pussy s--t with trying to win the handgun angle while allowing MG's to continue to be banned is cowardly.

What better place than here?

What better place than now?

Maybe this is why i'm not a lawyer............

MicroGuy · Post by **MicroGuy** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:49 pm

Looks like I might be a winner.....

cqbdoc10 · Post by **cqbdoc10** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:05 pm

I love this quote, and I hope to God that one of the USSC clerks digs it up....

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin at the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

Gura SUCKED!!!!!!!! WTF?????

Gura SUCKED!!!!!!!! WTF?????

Re: Gura SUCKED!!!!!!!! WTF?????