TexasCHLforum.com

My turn to jump in.

Gura didn't just "agree" on machine guns, he flat out stated that they were "not an arm of the type that people might be expected to possess commonly in ordinary use."

If I was a justice I might have taken Gura to task for lying about that issue alone.

First of all, I had an email exchange with Gura early on in the case, in which I pointed out that the Second Amendment should also protect cannon and machine guns. I based this on commentary on two things, first was that the initial battle at the Old North Bridge, was due to Lt. Col. Francis Smith's mission to capture cannon and other supplies from the colonists. With this fresh in mind, the framers of the Bill of Rights had to have included cannon in the protective aspect of the amendment, particularly since cannon were commonly privately owned in that era.

I also pointed out that guns were a natural progression in firearms development, and even anticipated due to Franklin's and Gallileo's work, among others, on such things, and should also be protected.

Gura replied that he agreed but "due to the narrow nature," etc, etc.

For him to say the things he said in the exchange with the justices, seems to me a step beyond a mistake made by an ego driven inexperienced attorney, it sounds more like he carefully crafted the answer in anticipation of just such a question, because he knew that bringing such things into the case could and most likely would have a negative effect on the decision.

In other words, Gura threw machine guns and cannon under the wheels, despite the fact that there are civilian owners of such items, and people who would like to own them, who may suffer.

Due to our email exchange, I personally feel betrayed by Gura, not the NRA.