The Heller Argument
I’m listening to and reading the Heller argument now. The transcript is here. The audio is here. Both come courtesy of Howard Bashman.
I’m trying not to look at too much analysis before I finish up — and I may not finish tonight. But if you’re looking for analysis now, here is Jan Crawford Greenburg.
After having listened to Dellinger and Clement, I have the impression that 1) Kennedy supports an individual right; 2) Scalia and Roberts think you could still ban, say, machine guns consistent with the Second Amendment; 3) It’s probably 5-4 with Kennedy in the majority and Roberts writing a narrow opinion focusing on the sweeping nature of the ban; and 4) Scalia seems to think strict scrutiny is just fine. I’m not sure how Scalia reconciles 2) and 4), but it may not be necessary given 3). And that may be the sum total of my analysis even after I finish listening to the guy arguing for Heller.
UPDATE: A cute exchange between Breyer and Scalia during the argument by Heller’s lawyer:
BREYER [to Heller’s lawyer]: But does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate, assuming that the objective is what the military people say, to keep us ready for the draft, if necessary, is it unreasonable for a city with that high crime rate to say no handguns here?
JUSTICE SCALIA [to Heller’s lawyer]: You want to say yes. That’s your answer.
He’s there to help.