|
I've just finished listening to the whole oral argument. Here are my observations:
The attorney for DC got severe road rash from falling under the bus. The justices just weren't having any of what he was selling.
The attorney for the Solictor General, who was asking for an individual right, but with a relaxed standard of review was treated respectfully. Still, I don't think they fully bought into his argument. This remains the point where we are most vulnerable.
Alan Gura, our guy, was a bit nervous at first, but quickly hit his stride and did extremely well. At a couple of places, Scalia actually coached him from the bench.
It seems clear that we will get an individual right ruling. It is likely that we will get a strict scrutiny standard of review, which is what we want. If both of those happen, then my guess is that the following will be true:
DC's gun laws, both the disassembled/trigger lock and the outright ban on handguns, are toast.
Suits in Kalifornia, Chicago, and New York City will quickly follow, and we will win those. We will have 10-30 years of fairly active litigation sorting out what the new limits are.
Major restrictions on machine guns, and on interstate transportation of sawed off shotguns will remain. Licensing laws that are narrowly tailored, fairly applied, and which are not a subterfuge for banning firearms are most likely going to be acceptable. The transfer tax on machine guns will probably go away sometime in the next 10 years.
The Violence Policy Center will shrivel and die. Hopefully, someone will have the courtesy to drive a stake through its heart.
The NRA will be actively involved in the next few decades of litigation, but will gradually turn its attention to other issues, such as hunter education, competitive shooting, and finding moose.
|