2A Litigator to speak at Valpo Law School

[sadclownwp]

I can't wait to go.

 

[turnandshoot4]

I am planning on attending.

This will be interesting. I get out of my Theo class at around 1430.

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

I am planning on attending.

This will be interesting. I get out of my Theo class at around 1430.

As I said I may be a few minutes late... save me a seat and I'll get there as soon as I can. Already set up with EJM874 to get the beginning of the program recorded... so hopefully I ll have something to post once I get the OK from the speaker...

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

Well good for you sir... The next best thing to a firearm for protecting your family and property is a good fence.

but how is it "practiced"???

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

Thanks for the update! And coincidentally, I am on break between our split class taught by none other than Prof. Vandercoy.

Hey he (Vandercoy) I would think is a great 2A guy.

Out at NPCCC most Sunday afternoons and tears up the clays on the trap range. Really good trap shooter! (at least in comparison to my feeble efforts certainly.)

 

[turnandshoot4]

Where the heck is this lecture hall?

 

[ejm874]

Where the heck is this lecture hall?

It's actually just a classroom. The classroom is called Ulbricht. (Most) All of the classrooms are at the north end of the law school building. If you come in the main entrance, turn down the long hallway to your right. You will reach a dead end and face two classrooms. One is Ulbricht and it will say so near the door.

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

It's actually just a classroom. The classroom is called Ulbricht. (Most) All of the classrooms are at the north end of the law school building. If you come in the main entrance, turn down the long hallway to your right. You will reach a dead end and face two classrooms. One is Ulbricht and it will say so near the door.

Who knows, maybe with the INGO presence, they will have to move it to Tabor, which really IS more of a lecture hall

 

[ejm874]

Who knows, maybe with the INGO presence, they will have to move it to Tabor, which really IS more of a lecture hall

You are correct there sir. Tabor was nearly at capacity for the Barnes arguments which were heard at VUSL. Side note - glad I attended that, never would have predicted the fallout we are seeing now from that decision. Looking back, it's exciting to have observed the court at work in that particular case. I hope to see a crowd at least that big for this!

 

[Hoosierbuck]

I'll be there. We should meet up afterwards and say hello/introduce oursleves. I'll have to run to my daughter's basketball game shortly afterwards, but for a little bit I'll hang out by the Tabor doors in case any of you guys stop by. I'll be the shifty-eyed one with my back to the wall and a hand inside my sportcoat.... (humor.)

HB

 

[turnandshoot4]

Ok, I am slow. I only have classes in the MUH.

What building is this?

 

[Hoosierbuck]

The VU School of Law

 

[ejm874]

Ok, I am slow. I only have classes in the MUH.

What building is this?

Wesemann Hall. I may have misspelled that even though I am there every day. The address is 656 S Greenwich.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Alright. I will head there in a bit. I am in black coat, black shirt, black shoes, and black pants.

 

[ejm874]

Alright. I will head there in a bit. I am in black coat, black shirt, black shoes, and black pants.

Grey suit, white shirt, red tie - you know INGOish colors.

 

[turnandshoot4]

What an awesome lecture!

 

[sadclownwp]

It was about 4:15 before i got to valpo, and I always felt bad walking into lectures late in college, so I went shooting at Blythes instead.

I did want to see it. Did you guys learn alot

 

[Hoosierbuck]

Gura's talk was outlined like this:
1) In light of Heller and Macdonald (sp?) What is next for strategic civil rights litigation re: the 2nd A?
Analyze bases for Heller dec'n., which was that the regulated activity is at the CORE fo the 2nd A. based upon the original meaning of the language and the common use test. (i.e. that the type of arms sought to be regulated was the type you would expect to find in common use for protected activity.)

Discuss the Ezell v. Chicago case in light of Heller.

2) Discuss next level of government intrusion, (as opposed to D.C's total ban on operative handguns,) a partial ban or restiction based on they type or design of the arms. This leads to an analysis of whehter the arms pass the Common Use Test, and whther the regulatory or licensing scheme passes muster on a "prior restraint" basis (which I admittedly did not follow as closely as the rest of the lecture and at which time Gura began laying out that much current 2nd A analysis follows the more thoroughly litigated and judicially opined 1st A body of law, which is covered in part 3 more thotoughly,) and the requirement that the standards which determine eligibility are objective as opposed to subjective. [Prior restraint is a concept that decrees that everything within this particualr area is illegal unless and until you get a license to do so from the government. There really is no right there, IMHO. Therefore, I think Gura was saying that a total prior restraint should be shot down by the court. Again, not sure I followed this thread as well as the rest of the lecture.]

3) What level of judicial scrutiny should regulation be subject to when it does not facially violate the 2nd A's core protections or regulate based on classification of the arms?
This is where he really got into the comaprison between analysis under the 2nd A and the 1st A. There just isn't much law out there on the 2nd A, so the courts are seemingly looking to 1st A cases to see how they were handled. 1st A law reveals a basic three tiered test. A) If the regulation goes to a core value of the Constitution, then it is subject to strict scrutiny by the courts. B) If the regulation is a Time /Place /Manner on the exercise of the right, then it is subject to anlaysis based on a framework where the regulation will be upheld only where it is content-neutral*, narrowly tailored to serve a significant gov't interest, and leaves ample alternative methods of exercise of the right. (*Remember, this is usually under the concept of free speech, so content would be the subject matter of the speech. When talking guns, I guess that would mean, regardless of the type of weapon invlved.) C) If the regulation only touches on the fringes of the exercise fo the right, then it would be subject to Intermediate Scrutiny.

Then Mr. Gura discussed other cases in the works, noting that a case out of Illinois, which is quite Draconian in its gun laws, btw (shocker!) just went live yesterday with oral arguments before the court of appeals over there. Search the IL Sup. Ct. website for information on Wilson v. Cook County. There is a Heller II case which deals with a DC ban on "assault weapons." There are some pro se litigants who mean well but are not going to ultimately help the cause making waves in some jurisdictions. There are lower courts disregarding Heller, and not much we can do about it. There is a lot of stuff in the pipeline, but its developing slowly in the civil rights arena.

This is basically what I gleaned from the lecture. This isibased only on my notes, and nothing from the speaker. If it seems ridiculous to you, I probably didn't state it as clearly as I should have. He moved fast, and touched on stuff that can take semesters to learn in school. He is the real deal, and I was impressed. End of report.

It was good to meet the three guys that were there. INGO was well represented.

HB

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

Good to see Hoosierbuck, ejm874, and turnandshoot4 there at the program lecture.
Pretty interesting program and a good summary.
Keep in mind that although SCOTUS sets the precedent, there is a LOT of wiggle room for lower courts to either carve out exceptions, or in some cases nearly refuse to follow the SC settlement by making specific exceptions.

The problem is the number of lower courts and the need to be vigilant for their actions. (for one example the 4th Amendment travesty that happened in the Indiana Supreme Court Barnes Case, that says you do not have recourse to physically resist an illegal search and seizure of your home by law enforcement. Yes, that needs to be changed here as well.)

FYI, I have a beginning to end audio recording of the presentation and Mr. Gura has graciously given permission to share it with anyone interested in 2 Amendment rights. HOWEVER, be forewarned... The audio file is 14 MB ! Send me a separate PM with your email address, and I will be happy to copy this off to you as an attached file.

If anyone can PM me with instructions on how to upload such a file and make it generally available let me know. I'm sure there is a way to do it, but I cant find the time to go hunting for what I know others are already knowledgeable about.

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

Grey suit, white shirt, red tie - you know INGOish colors.

Oh Geesh... the guy is already wearing the Uniform of a Lawyer... EM, you're scaring me!!!
Yeah I know... I was doin the suit sh*#t too... we are just Tools of the legal system !!!