OXFORD – The idea that the Second Amendment applies to states and cities is “a slam dunk,” says the attorney who argued the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court last week.

Alan Gura, lead plaintiffs’ attorney in McDonald, et al, v. Chicago, reiterated some of his legal argument Tuesday at the University of Mississippi’s Lamar Law Center.

Gura’s visit was sponsored by the student chapter of the Federalist Society, which promotes dialogue in conservative and libertarian issues.

Gura also led the plaintiffs’ argument in Heller v. Washington, D.C., in 2008, which established the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. The Chicago case will determine whether such rights are applicable to states and subordinate governments.

The Bill of Rights was originally viewed as applying only to the federal government, “but that didn’t work out very well,” Gura told his audience. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment established citizenship of freed slaves and forbade states to “abridge the privileges or immunities” of citizens or to “deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

Ole Miss assistant law professor Chris Green disagreed with Gura on interpreting the privileges or immunities clause.

“‘No state shall abridge natural rights’ is not a good paraphrasing of the 14th Amendment,” he said.

National Rifle Association attorneys were given half the plaintiffs’ time in McDonald v. Chicago to argue for “substantive due process” as a basis for incorporation of the Second Amendment.

“It didn’t help,” Gura said. “It was not smart strategy,”

Contact Errol Castens at (662) 281-1069 or errol.castens@djournal.com.