Profile of Bob Levy, Lawyer in DC Gun Ban Case:

Yesterday's Washington Post had an extended profile of Robert A. Levy, the lawyer who brought the challenge to the DC gun ban. There is interesting background here on how the plaintiffs were identified as well as the decision not to accept any outside financing. According to the story, Bob doesn't own a gun.

MikeMD (mail):
My, that article didn't have any snarky bitterness, did it?
3.19.2007 12:16pm
Dave N (mail):
To use an overused cliche, Robert Levy is putting his money where his mouth is. And it seems clear his advocacy is guided by principle and nothing else.
3.19.2007 12:18pm
John Herbison (mail):
I found interesting Mr. Levy's commentary on the postion of the National Rifle Association regarding the D.C. gun ban lawsuit:

One wonders—would the N$R$A rather have the issue than the resolution thereof?
3.19.2007 12:41pm
Sebastian (mail) (www):
The NRA has always been a bit skittish about using the courts to overturn gun laws, but not because of any nefarious reasons, but because going to the courts is exceedingly risky. Given that the NRA has had a lot of success in the political arena, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for them to risk and all or nothing gamble by taking a case all the way to the Supreme Court. I commend Mr. Levy, because I think this is probably the best case we're going to see in a long time, and The Court today may also be the best we can hope for, but I also understand why the NRA doesn't want to roll the dice.

Most of the folks who say the NRA wants to keep the issue alive for money should remember the organization has existed for most of its history without doing any political lobbying at all, and if the gun control issue were ever settled for good, they'd just go back to doing what they used to do. But even an individual rights ruling on the second will not put this issue to bed by a long shot. There will still be a lot for the NRA to do.
3.19.2007 3:04pm
Alan Gura:
The choice is not between our case, and the Supreme Court ignoring the issue.

The choice is between our case, or some other case.

The Federal Reporter is full of 2nd Amendment cases involving criminal defendants. How did those turn out for individual right advocates?

You better believe I have heard from the criminal defense bar about Parker. The issue is not going to magically disappear and go away.

We fully recognize the risk of taking our case before the Supreme Court. But chances are 100% that in the absence of a good case going to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will take a bad Second Amendment case, e.g. felon in possession, sentencing enhancement, drug dealer carrying without a permit (U.S. v. Maple, 334 F.3d 15 (D.C. Cir. 2003)).
3.19.2007 3:38pm
Sebastian (mail) (www):
Yeah, I didn't mean to seem to be knocking you guys for taking the case forward. I think it's a great case, and I really hope, and suspect, it will prevail. But it's going to be a nail biter for me nonetheless.
3.19.2007 7:39pm
dwlawson (mail) (www):
Mr. Gura,
As a resident of Chicago languishing in disarmed status, I salute you and Mr. Levy and all others working this case.

I suspect the only relief in sight for me is if this goes all the way to SCOTUS.

Well...I might have to vote with my feet, as they say.
3.19.2007 9:44pm
triticale (mail) (www):
When the opportunity arose for us to leave Chicago arose, the city's victim disarmament policy was cited by wife as the deciding factor. I would encourage you not to languish, and to make your motivation clear to others.
3.19.2007 10:30pm
I just got around to reading the opinion and found myself confused by a single sentence in the standing discussion:

"Since D.C. Code § 22-4504 (prohibition against carrying a pistol without a license) and D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 (disassembly/trigger lock requirement) would amount to further conditions on the certificate Heller desires, Heller’s standing to pursue the license denial would subsume these other claims too."

How does this make sense? Isn't the injury only that he was denied his license?
3.21.2007 12:28pm