True North

Well the first shots have been fired in defining the meaning of the Second Amendment. Oral arguments were heard today and in fact ran well over what was originally scheduled. Probably most surprising was the starting point of both sides. The lawyers representing the gun ban side, essentially conceded that the Second Amendment specifies an individual right early on. They made a few token attempts to argue against it, but it became fairly obvious that the court wasn't open to that point of view.

Basically the final opinion is likely to come down to answering a few specific questions. First, given that the 2nd Amendment secures an individuals right to keep and bear arms, can the government regulate that and in what manner? And if they can regulate it, which level of judicial review should it have to pass??

What that basically means is that those that argue in favor of the Second Amendment aren't likely to lose any ground any this case. Roberts, Scalia and Alito seemed firmly in the individual rights camp. Kennedy seemed to be leaning that direction and I'm assuming Thomas would be the same, although he seemed silent in the debate. Souter and Ginsburg were solidly in the "guns are the source of all evil" camp. Breyer was a little harder to figure out where he was leaning, although it appeared he was likely leaning towards the individual right side of the fence.

Overall it was absolutely fascinating to read through and listen to the arguments made. Many are ones I've heard in one form or another. Others were new points of view, at least to me, that were interesting to entertain even if I didn't necessarily agree with them.

In the end it appears that the Second Amendment is likely to be held as an individual right, but subject to regulation by the government. This is not exactly without precedent (as I believe one of the Justices pointed out), as speech, assembly and press are all also subject to reasonable regulation, despite being individual rights. What defines "reasonable" appears likely to be the bulk of the discussion at this point. Although, from at least the impression I got from both arguments and the points the justices were making "reasonable" appears that it will probably fall far short of an outright ban such as the DC gun ban is.

[Crossposted at EckerNet.Com.  Comments welcome]