Can be found here. [UPDATE 7/22/2010: Not anymore. The Las Vegas Review-Journal, sewer rats that they are, receive no links from this blog]  Hat tip to War on Guns for pointing it out. I don’t really agree with Suprynowicz, in the sense that I think Gura did what he thought he had to do to win the case, but I don’t find this article particularly inflamatory. What set me off on GOA was the implication that the people involved in this case were not on “our side.” I think there’s a difference between offering criticism and using language that tends to undermine or downplay the contributions of others.
This case won’t be the end of second amendment litigation by far, just the beginning. Will we rescue machine gun rights from this? I’m doubtful, there’s a lot of damage to be undone in that area, but we’ll have to wait and see what’s in the opinion, and where we can go from here. We will need groups that will make machine guns an issue, because it’s not going to be NRA carrying that torch. But we need these other groups to carry a message of “We’re standing up for machine gun owners.” Not a message of “We’re standing up for machine gun owners, and all these other people to our ‘shock and horror’, who are on ‘our side’ are undermining us.” This can’t become “If you don’t agree with me on everything we’re enemies.”  That’s a great way to lose.