For Those Whining About Alan Gura's Performance

For Those Whining About Alan Gura's Performance

I've heard a few people whining about how well Alan did at oral arguments. To which I can only say:

1. Yes, you or I might well have corrected Justice Breyer about the number of gun deaths per year. But think of the pressure that Mr. Gura was under (first time before the Supreme Court)--and ask yourself if you would really have done better--or perhaps just flubbed something else. [UPDATE: Breyer talked about "killed or wounded"--so he was probably correct.]

2. This is a hard situation. Alan had to defend the individual right to bear arms--and at the same time, without letting the parade of horribles that scare the wits out of even those sympathetic to our point of view dominate the discussion. Yes, yes, it is definitely the case that the Second Amendment protects a right of law-abiding adults to possess machine guns. But this is the kind of argument that can be logically and historically correct, and yet lose the day.

3. It appears that we have the majority we need--and a perfect performance by Mr. Gura (you know, like the perfect performance that the rest of us just know we could have put on under that kind of pressure) might not change the results. It does not sound to me like those who are going to vote against us would have felt differently, even if we had used a time machine to bring James Madison into the courtroom to explain our position.

Give it a rest.