There are some VERY comforting arguments floating around. Some good leading questions by the justices. the SG emphasized the individual right much more strongly than the scrutiny side.

Mr. Gura made a lot of coherent arguments

I'm not too crazy about Bob Levy (council for Heller) talking about how gun registration might be acceptable as a reasonable restriction on guns. This is the after-hearing interviews on the steps outside and doesn't mean anything in this case, but it still is irritating.

> Subject: D.C. v. Heller Eyewitness - Postgame Highlights #1
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> Full contact info at end
>
> DATELINE: Washington, D.C. 3/18/08
>
> Recovering from the Whirlwind of the Day
>
> Heller Case Goes Better Than Expected
>
> by Alan Korwin, Co-Author
> Supreme Court Gun Cases
>
>
> The bottom line is, I think we’re going to be OK.
>
> When Justice Kennedy flat out said he believes in an individual right
> under the Second Amendment, there were no gasps in the hush of the
> High
> Court, but you could tell the greatest stellar array of gun-rights
> experts ever assembled, all there in that one room, breathed a sigh
> of
> relief -- we had five votes to affirm the human and civil right to
> arms.
>
> The transcript will be a key for analysis going forward until June,
> when the decision is expected, and I’m working without the benefit
> of that
> at the moment. Digesting the fleeting and immensely complex speech
> that took place for one hour and thirty-eight minutes a few hours
> ago,
> it’s hard to see how any line of thought could be strung together to
> support the idea that the D.C. total ban on operable firearms at
> home can be
> seen as reasonable regulation, even though Mr. Dellinger, the city’s
> attorney, tried to suggest it was. He was shot down on this
> repeatedly,
> found no quarter from any of the Justices, though several found room
> to
> move on what amounts to reasonable restrictions.
>
> And it is easy to see, from the non-stop rapid-fire comments and
> questions of eight of the Justices (Thomas asked nothing, extending
> his
> legendary running silence), how even the most permissive standard of
> review
> imaginable for gun-ban laws, could tolerate the District’s level of
> intolerance toward some sort of right to keep and bear arms.
>
> That would give the pro-rights side what it so sorely wants – an
> admission that the Second Amendment protects something for “the
> people,” and
> the rest of that pie can be baked later.
>
> Dellinger tried to suggest that rifles, shotguns and handguns had
> different usefulness, actually implying rifles are better for self
> defense
> in an urban home, because handguns were so inherently bad or
> dangerous
> that cities had a legitimate interest in banning them, but the Court
> wasn’t buying it, and noting that D.C.’s ban banned everything.
>
> Packed into that short rabidly intense section, the Justices examined:
>
> * Original intent, and actions and writings of the colonies at the
> time
> of adoption;
>
> * The meanings of the words, though not to the extent some people had
> anticipated;
>
> * Separability of the terms keep and bear, whether they represented
> one
> right or two, how one could exist without the other, if they had
> civilian meanings or military ones, if you are “bearing” arms to go
> hunting
> and more;
>
> * The scope of the right covered, and whether personal or military
> protections stood alone, dependent or had preference over each
> other;
>
> * The “operative” and and preamble clause, and their relationship,
> meaningfulness, and interactivity with each other;
>
> * The types of weapons that might be covered by the term “arms,”
> accepting the idea that some weapons fall outside a sense of militia
> arms,
> like “plastic guns” (that’s what they were called) that could escape
> airport metal detection, or “rocket launchers” (actually a commonly
> used
> modern militia arm in some countries experiencing insurgencies, a
> point
> that did not come up), and especially machine guns, a repeated point
> which the Justices did not resolve, especially since it has become
> the
> standard issue firearm for our modern armed forces and confused the
> Miller
> doctrine of commonly used arms;
>
> * The rise and meaning of strict scrutiny, a doctrine that evolved
> around the First Amendment and had no actual root in the
> Constitution, and
> whose actual definition was fluid and with little consensus.
>
>
>
> Scalia asked if permissible limits could restrict you to one gun, or
> only a few guns, or if a collector couldn’t complete a set like a
> stamp
> collector because of a quantity restriction, and then launched into
> a
> demonstration of his familiarity with firearms by suggesting a need
> to
> have a turkey gun, and a duck gun, and a thirty-ought-six, and a
> .270,
> which sent Thomas into a fit of off-mic laughter that other
> observers
> missed because they were focused on Scalia;
>
> Noting that Massachusetts in colonial times regulated the storage of
> gunpowder (it had to be kept upstairs as a fire precaution), Breyer
> asked
> if there isn’t a lineage to permissible restrictions, and the Court
> generally agreed. The point of contention, and it would not go away,
> was
> where that line was drawn, and again and again the D.C. absolute ban
> was found violative in its absoluteness. The decision to test the
> protection of 2A against this law in particular was a brilliant
> stratagem.
>
> Dellinger either deliberately misled the Court, or didn’t understand
> the D.C. ban law (as hard to believe as that is, and it could come
> back
> to bite him), because, in trying to make it appear less odious than
> it
> was, he:
>
> * Suggested D.C. would carve out an exception for an operable gun if
> it
> were used in self defense -- which the law flatly does not abide
> (and
> a point thoroughly undercut by Heller’s attorney Alan Gura, who
> pointed
> out the District had such an opportunity twice and did not do so,
> and
> in fact did the opposite);
>
> * For use in self defense, a gun could be easily and quickly unlocked
> and brought to bear, a point undercut by Chief Justice Roberts who
> had
> to fight to get an admission that the gun had to be reloaded as
> well,
> since the D.C. law banned loaded and unlocked arms;
>
> * That lead to a wonderful exchange in which Dellinger said a gun can
> be simply unlocked quickly -– he actually said he could do it in
> three
> seconds, after demonstrating a poor understanding of how a lock
> (available at a “hardware store” nearby) fits on a gun with or
> without
> “bullets” in it;
>
> * That lead to Scalia asking about turning a dial to find “3” and then
> turning it the other way to find the next number;
>
> * To which Roberts noted that, don’t you first have to turn on the
> light having heard the sound of breaking glass, and then find your
> reading
> glasses -- which got the biggest audience laugh of the day (there
> were
> only a few other soft chuckles during the proceedings);…
>
>
> OK, I recognize that this is a bit disjointed, and I’m working on an
> unfamiliar machine, at the end of a grueling endurance test that
> involved
> outrageous hours, little sleep, lousy diet, dire cold, miles of up
> and
> downhill walking, and I’m getting pretty hungry. I’ll do a better
> job
> over time, but I wanted to share some inside scoop you might not
> otherwise get. Let me, before pausing for some chow (which we’ll
> have to go
> out and find), convey some ambience.
>
> Guests of the Court were ushered into the ground floor early on,
> milling around (line waiters including my friend Bob were prepped on
> the
> white marble steps outside). It was a who’s who inside and non-stop
> on-your-toes meet and greet. John Snyder, lobbyist for CCRKBA/ SAF,
> had read my
> blog entry from last night, and introduced me to the companion on
> his
> lobby bench… Dick Heller, of the Heller case.
>
> A nice mild mannered guy, “I just want to be able to keep my guns.” He
> said when they started this in 1994, they had no idea what they were
> getting into, and in 1997 they began entertaining the idea that it
> could
> go all the way and started raising funds. Now it had taken on a life
> of
> its own and barely involved him. At 9:30 last night, he walked the
> wait-to-get-in line and passed out cough drops. No one knew who he
> was. He
> sat just behind me in the Courtroom. I lucked into the second row.
>
> Directly in front of me was… Mayor Fenty, and I sat in the bright
> reflected light of his pate. He turned, and in typical smiling
> politician
> fashion extended his hand, shook mine, and said warmly, “It’s nice
> to see
> you” as if we knew each other. Well at least, I knew him. One seat
> to
> my right was Ann Dellinger, the city’s lawyer’s wife, who turned out
> to
> be fascinating and a wealth of information. In a few moments, the
> mayor relinquished his eat to the D.C. Chief of Police, but she
> didn’t turn
> and say hi. Heady stuff. Everybody was a somebody.
>
> Familiar faces were strewn about – there’s David Hardy on the other
> side of the aisle, and Bob Dowlut had a front row seat. Stephen
> Halbrook,
> one of my co-authors on Supreme Court Gun Cases had an early spot on
> the Supreme Court bar-members line, and my other co-author, Dave
> Kopel, who
> previously told me he would not be attending, turned out to be a
> last-minute addition to the Respondant’s table at the head of the
> Courtroom.
> People who I think were on a better “tier” than I, like Joe Olson,
> Clayton Cramer and others, didn’t luck into a seat and listened to
> disembodied voices from the lawyers lounge outside the Courtroom.
>
> Three calls for “sshhh” from a clerk at the front instantly dropped
> the
> growing anticipatory cacophony to silence which then ramped up
> gently
> until the next hiss for quiet. Three minutes to go and a call for
> silence left everyone with their own thoughts until a tone sounded,
> the
> aides signaled us to rise, God Bless This Court was spoken, and we
> were
> underway.
>
> By a stroke of luck, Justice Thomas was assigned the reading of a
> decision of a prior case, and we got to hear his baritone voice,
> which often
> remains mute throughout. New members of the Supreme Court bar were
> sworn
> in, and Justice Roberts asked Mr. Dellinger to begin, which he did
> promptly.
>
> More later.
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Alan Gura recently sat down with reason.tv's Nick Gillespie to explain the high stakes of one of the most important and highly anticipated court cases in recent memory, DV v Heller.