McDonald v Chicago, Gura’s Response brief
- Gura explains “You see … Chicago is full of idiots.”
Awesome! In Alan Gura’s response to the City of Chicago brief to the Supreme court he coherently tells the court that the City of Chicago is full of idiots who have no idea what they are talking about and are just making stuff up.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
1. Respondents offer no coherent alternative
interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause,
nor do they defend the reasoning of The Slaughter-
House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873). Relying
on illogical assumptions, selective quotation of the
Fourteenth Amendment’s opponents and discredited
scholarship, Respondents aver only that the Clause
is either indeterminate or redundant of other provisions.
It is neither. And included within the Clause’s
protection is the right to keep and bear arms as
understood in 1868 America.…
The fundamental flaw underlying Respondents’
approach is their erroneous conception of rights as
something granted by the Constitution when judges
deem it suits public policy. See, e.g., Respondents Br.
11; Mayors Br. 2, 30. The Second Amendment, like
the First, grants nothing. These secure pre-existing
rights against the federal government. Heller, 128
S. Ct. at 2812. In 1868, the Nation decided to secure
them against the States as well.