The NYT has a fairly good (and by that, I mean they’re not shitting their pants because guns are involved) piece on Robert Levy and the Heller case:

They started by interviewing dozens of potential plaintiffs in Washington.

“We wanted gender diversity,” Mr. Levy said. “We wanted racial diversity. We wanted age diversity. We wanted income diversity.”

The lawyers picked three men and three women, four white and two black. “They ranged in age from 20s to 60s,” Mr. Levy said, “with varying incomes and varying occupations.”

The appeals court knocked five plaintiffs out of the case in March, saying they did not have standing to sue because they had never tried to register a gun.

Mr. Levy called that ruling a Catch-22. “If you want to apply for a license or permit for a handgun, you have to prove ownership of a handgun,” he said. “Where do you get one? You can’t buy a handgun in Washington, D.C., and federal law says you can’t buy a handgun in any state except where you reside.”

Mr. Levy said his team had anticipated the issue. The remaining plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller, a security officer, was turned down by the Washington police when he tried to register a pistol he had bought while living elsewhere.

Along with carefully selecting the plaintiffs, the lawyers working with Mr. Levy shaped their case in a second way, consciously keeping their distance from some groups that support gun rights.

There’s a lot more. This case has been years in the making and, obviously, very well thought-out and planned. Hats off to these guys.

I find it odd that Mr. Levy has never owned a gun.

Posted in uncategorized on December 4th, 2007 by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |