At first pass I wouldn't waste my money on that lawyer; his response struck me as a bit dismissive and specious. Why can't I yell "Fire" in a crowded theater that isn't on fire? For the same reason I cannot discharge a firearm in a crowded theater when there is no one shooting at me. In either case I still have rights of free speech and bear arms, I am simply not abusing them by arbitrarily yelling or shooting for no reason creating unnecessary havoc. This, of course, is what the grabbers think happens with the simple possession of a gun.
Using the same thought process correctly, if there was a fire in the theater I SHOULD yell "FIRE!" and hope everyone is warned and are able to remove themselves from the life-threatening situation. If someone was shooting at me in that same theater I SHOULD defend myself with a like firearm and allow others to remove themselves from a life-threatening situation. I guess in the one situation I should and in the other the grabbers say no I shouldn't.....
Sorry, this whole bestowing selective rights thing reminds me why we kicked out England in the first place.....
Good response to the "crowded theatre" analogy. I agree, many oversimplifications like this are thrown out by the anti-self-defense crowd, and it is useful to point out how they do not stand up to the light of reason.
Same time, I would not dismiss the lawyer's note too quickly. His point seems to be that the representatives in question are not to be easily reached by our general charges and allegations. He is right. If they were, they would be even more susceptable to improper influence than they currently are.
To the OP: I'd thank the lawyer for taking the time to respond, for not taking money for something that he doesn't think will get the results you want, and for being blunt.
Law-makers are granted certain immunities -- not complete, but substancial. If challenged they tend to insist that: 1) they were acting in good faith; 2) they believed it was for the good of "the people" and/or "the children"; and, 3) there is at least a somewhat plausible argument that it is, or ought to be, constitutional. As I am sure you see, referencing Heller suggests that the case highlighted a lot gray area, and opened the door for a lot of these arguments to be made. I think that would probably be enough to insulate the legislators from any real prosecution.
If shown clearly and obviously wrong, and they really had their backs against the wall, they could probably still be successfully defended by a claim of stupidity, ignorance or "Gee whiz, I guess I didn't think it through". Some of them even get re-elected on that stuff.
I might still mull over the lawyer's challenges, though: How, exactly and
very specifically, has the particular legislator violated his/her oath -- and, what counter-argument will the legislator make in defense of such an accusation? ... and what is a good resonse to that?
If you kick it around and it still looks like you have something you want to run with, I'd consider what would be the best venue to raise the issue. (Civil or other legal action? Letter to the editor or TV news editorial comment? Political mailings or campaign-related publicity -- at the right time? Just getting the word out as best you can, without any more formal action?)
Who knows, you might see that you have some good stuff to go with -- and, what direction to go with it.
Either way, I like and respect your thinking on it.
