[Ramius]

I don’t agree offhand. I listened to it and have the transcript I don’t think there was much in the way of concession.

I think they’ll rule that there is an individual right and that banning all handguns is unreasonable.

But I am careful to get too cocky based only on the oral arguments. History suggests that there isn’t much of a relationship there. It certainly is not predictive.

.

[Clump]

Recent history suggests that predictions based on oral argument can be successfully made. Each "high profile" case in the last year or two has been relatively easy to predict, unless the Justice in question (usually Kennedy) does not tip his hand.

But here, he stated that he considered the "operative clause" to remain separate from a militia purpose. He did not "hide the ball" or simply play devil's advocate like Breyer did. Some people around here were predicting a landslide based on the arguments. I think it incorrect to take arguments from the left as anything other than doomsday scenarios if the lower court is affirmed.

I think this will be a 5-4 decision to affirm. Breyer will dissent separately and give lip service to some weak individual right subject to what amounts to a rational basis test. The 3 other goons will say there is no individual right, and all levels of government are free to regulate as they see fit.

I think the majority opinion will say it is an individual right, and that self defense is a fundamental right as well. It will be conservative in scope, but a landmark opinion nonetheless. I will take it.