I thougt that Gura accepted the assumed position that machines guns was poisonous to the case so he agree that it was acceptable for those to be taxed and regulated as they are under the 1934 law.

Gura is young and inexerienced and that showed in the verbal arguments. He won becasue he was meticulous and presented a good case with good plaintiffs and was helped by the justices.

Gura and Levy who funded the case were motivated by the civil rights travesty that was DC law. However Gura is not a as passionate devotee to gun rights as many of us are.

I accepted the incremental approach to push back against bad law. But the best method is to have the rights so accepted that those laws never get enacted.

One of the hardest problems about fighting for the Second via the courts is that so often the defendants are not choirboys. If we let every one of them go by without contesting the points, doesn’t it make the fight more difficult when it is finally joined?

Keep up the good work, we need more people just like you!

And that’s not even mentioning that a lot of the egomaniacs out there enjoy throwing rocks at people who do effective work.

For example, although I’m not a lawyer and don’t play one on TV (nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night), I disagree with Mr. Gura on his treatment of the issue of automatic weapons during the Heller arguments. I’ve read his explanation, and I believe that he could have answered that question in a way that had less of a “throw that one under the bus” flavor.

However, he did engineer an incredibly big win, and I salute him for that. With some luck and a lot of hard work, it will be the foundation for many successful lawsuits to come.

I’m not that familiar with Gorski or the arguments for or against his approach to litigating 2nd Amendment suits. (I do hold that Silveria brought us one of the best quotes on the true nature of the 2nd in history.) However, l’m not going to take too much time from my work for the 2nd in order to bash him, either.

Like I said, we really need to keep our eye on the goal. We all need to cooperate in reaching it and realize that there will be times when we won’t, and not allow those instances to become destructive to the overall effort.

Who decides what defines an extremist within a community that is often labeled by the mainstream media and political parties as extremist?

I think we can all agree that the neo-nazi’s and racists are out on the fringe and deserve to be further marginalized, but what about supporters of constitutional militias? jeffersonian libertarians? people flying gadsden flags?

These groups are too often grouped together in the minds of the general public, we in the 2A community need to be careful or risk alienating a huge portion of gun rights supporters.