I watched it on cspan. Unlike most others who think the pro gun side did great, I thought they did a lousy job. They conceded point after point, agreed that the right can be infringed as long as the infringement is “reasonable”, argued that handguns were not really “arms”, that arguments of “public safety” can supercede the constitution, that trigger locks and storage laws were acceptable, and made weak arguments regarding the relevance of self defense to the 2nd ammendment. I think we will probably come out of this with the status quo.
They had SCOTUS arguments televised? I thought cameras were banned up in there?
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.
.