Too much to do multiple posts. So, here you go:

Xrlq has a prediction.

Countertop does too (more discussion in comments).

NRA has updated their Heller page. Anyone got the arguments in MP3 or some useful audio format? Seriously, who uses Real Media? (no, not blaming NRA because that’s how the files comes) ETA: Ask, and ye shall receive. MP3 here. Thanks Justin.

Quotes from after.

Leibowitz comments. I love this quote (paraphrase):

I’m a federal guard. I carry a gun at work to protect the politicians. When I go home, though, they’ve decided that my life is not worth as much. They’ve decided I can’t use a gun to defend myself at home.

Lots of audio commentary at DownrangeTV.

Best line from oral arguments: After Dellinger said trigger locks could be removed quickly:

So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses…

It’s always fun to watch the Brits.

Another prediction.

Heh. A prediction guaranteed to be true.

You can’t make this stuff up:

George Nation, professor of law and business at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa., argues in the April issue of the Baylor Law Review that manufacturers of guns should be required to bear vicarious financial liability for the harm suffered by innocent bystanders who have been injured by the criminal use of their products.

And people thought congress was overreaching with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act.

David Hardy took some notes while he was there.

Don’t make Petey angry. You wouldn’t like him when he’s angry. He might shoot you.

In other news, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership and The American Hunters and Shooters Association were sitting in a tree.

And someone I know who watched the Heller argument said Fenty looked like someone shot his dog. Apparently, he thought it went badly.

Are all law students this dumb?

I was reading the transcript and read the machine gun stuff. Twice. I think Gura was talking about crew served weapons. In that context, his comments on lineal descendants make sense. Thoughts?

Every one calm down. Breath.

Ok, my thoughts are thus:

Gura was arguing for the first time in front of the Supremes. He was nervous. He said too much. And he gave too much to the bad guys. I don’t understand why he felt the need to bring up machine guns and talk in detail about them or why he talked about handguns in that light. He seemed to be willing to throw too many bones to the bad guys.

And to all you yammering on about throwing machine gun owners under the bus, deal with it. This case wasn’t about machine guns. This case is an incremental approach to winning the long war on gun control. You were thrown under the bus in 1986. Speaking of buses, if you drive one 20 miles in, it’s still 20 miles out. And this case represents the first couple miles of that trip back out. Cowboy up and accept that or scream ‘SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED’ at passers-by if you must. But it’s not helping. I think Gura’s move on MGs was small ball. They are not at issue and the whole point was to get the court to affirm a right to arms. Bring up MGs was good strategy on the anti-gun side as they knew that MGs 1) scare white people; and 2) will piss off the GOAers. Divide and conquer.

Anyone who expected Gura to walk in and demand M4s for all of us wasn’t paying attention.

If we go in demanding all or nothing, we’ll get nothing.

The Solicitor General did a good job of arguing the individual rights stuff but his standard of review is too much. I’m guessing there were some talks in the administration prior to the case.

Sebastian has more here and here.

Here:

Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark case for all Americans who believe as I do that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. I am proud to have joined in an amicus brief to the Court calling for a ruling in keeping with the clear intent of our Founding Fathers, which ensures the Second Amendment rights of the residents of District of Columbia are reaffirmed

.

Nothing yet from Hillary or Obama.

via email:

Joint Statement from Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox Regarding Oral Arguments

Before the Supreme Court Concerning the Second Amendment

Washington, D.C.’s ban on keeping handguns and functional firearms in the home for self-defense is unreasonable and unconstitutional under any standard. We remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree with the overwhelming majority of the American people, more than 300 members of Congress, 31 state attorneys general and the NRA that the Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms, and that Washington, D.C.’s bans on handguns and functional firearms in the home for self-defense should be struck down.

Update: Link.

Countertop is optimistic.

Update: Seen at ScotusBlog RE: strict scrutiny: Alito asks how the DC law could survive under any standard of review when it bans the weapon most commonly used for self defense.

BTW, Scotus blog is still live-blogging. Opposition is arguing the same thing we’re used to hearing. Interesting are the comments on the Solicitor General.

Here.

Earliest report indicates lots of us may have been wrong on Kennedy:

The Supreme Court’s historic argument Tuesday on the meaning of the Constitution’s Second Amendment sent out one quite clear signal: individuals may well wind up with a genuine right to have a gun for self-defense in their home. But what was not similarly clear was what kind of gun that would entail, and thus what kind of limitations government cut put on access or use of a weapon. In an argument that ran 23 minutes beyond the allotted time, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy emerged as a strong defender of the right of domestic self-defense.

Update: AP has a bit here:

The Supreme Court has heard arguments about the meaning of the Second Amendment and the Districts of Columbia’s ban on handguns.

A majority appears to support the view that the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns, rather than somehow linking right to service in a state militia.

But it is less clear what that means for the District’s 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.

“Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate…to say no handguns here?” Justice Stephen Breyer said.

On the other side, Chief Justice John Roberts asked at one point: “What is reasonable about a ban on possession” of handguns?

Note: I’m just gonna put all the Heller stuff in this one post. If you get any info, leave it comments.

First of all, Godspeed and good luck Messrs. Gura and Levy.

The NRA has lots of information on it here.

Levy has a piece in the Globe.

SCOTUSBlog will live blog it. They have a a round up commentary here.

Joe has an email from Alan Korwin, who is in line too.

TriggerFinger: Will an individual-right ruling in Heller disrupt criminal law? Chris Casteel says yes.

59% of Violence Policy Center Staffers support restrictions identical to Washington, DC’s gun laws! What? If they can make shit up, I can too.

Kevin reminds us that no matter how it turns out, there’s always plan B.

Update: More in the WSJ.

Update 2 (and bump): Keep and Bear Arms has a round up.

John Lott has a bit at NRO.

Update 3: Glenn has a piece here.

Update 4: Sebastian tells us pro-gun representation is low outside the court and that Petey Hamm and Paul Helmke are there. And NRA no where to be found?

Update 5: My sooper seekrit sources tell me all the NRA folks aren’t there because they’re inside the court room.

Update 6: Speaking of Plan B, Fenty and crew are already pondering ways to circumvent the court’s ruling if the good guys win.

Update 7: Live blogging has started at ScotusBlog.

The NYT: Our readers are stupid.

Update: based on comments at SCOTUSBlog, there may be hope for Kennedy, which is who I worried about.

Update: Interesting: There was a seemingly broad consensus that the right would not extend to machine guns, plastic guns that could evade metal detectors, and the like. Well, one of those is made up.

Lots of links at TriggerFinger.

Update: C-Span says arguments have concluded and they’ll have the audio soon.

Michael Silence: Perhaps I’m too simply minded but it seems to me if you don’t have the First Amendment, you don’t have the Second Amendment. And if you don’t have the Second Amendment, you don’t have the First Amendment. Any assault on one is an assault on the other. Any assault on either is an assault on all the Amendments.

I have a favor to ask of the press and people who write commentary. Stop the bad puns. You guys do this all the time. You say something like shoot straight or jump the gun. Some of them show your bias, such as CNN’s front page right now:

Gun ban decision: This time, it’s personal

Really? Action movie references? Your bigotry is showing. Or Gun Rights Showdown? I mean, come on people.

Ambulance Driver needs your help:

I’m going to cover all the standard stuff – velocity, bullet expansion and fragmentation, sectional density, penetration, wound channels (temporary and permanent), cavitation, yaw, tumbling and all that noise – while at the same time trying to dispel some of the common firearms myths out there.

Ok, what is it?

Via Ridefast.

Countertop is there.

The American Hunters and Shooters Association is getting press coverage again, this time in the Washington Post. No mention of their Executive Director Bob Ricker calling us non-hunting self-defense types Whackos. And they call NRA too absolutist. Of course, I am shocked that the article mentions that the American Hunters and Shooters Association is an anti-gun shill group:

The NRA also asserts that Schoenke’s association is a thinly veiled front for gun-control advocates, and offers as proof Schoenke’s $5,000 donation to Handgun Control Inc., predecessor to the main anti-gun lobby, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Schoenke rejects the assertion; he says he was only trying to help a cause important to his wife.

Unfortunately for Schoenke, the Brady Campaign basically agrees with the NRA. “I see our issues as complementary to theirs,” Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, says about Schoenke’s association. “They’re a positive group.”

Helmke even contends that the two organizations are not far apart in approach.

First press mention of that I’ve seen. They don’t mention that it’s a shill group designed to make Democrats look pro-gun while being anti-gun so that they can get elected.

Bitter throws down the gauntlet.

And Heller is argued today? How convenient!

Squeaky Wheel Gun.

Michael Bane emails that DownrangeTV will have streaming audio as it’s available.

Like Chicago, only this time in Atlanta. Seems the anti-gunners decided to do a lie in. 32 showed up. Press coverage and a photo gallery in the AJC. Meanwhile, about 200 gather to support gun rights and nothing.

Robert made a video.

I’m a gun owner but . . .

Ahab has more.

In what has to be another joke, they’re looking at banning fire extinguishers because (and I am not making this up) they are a fire hazard:

Fire extinguishers could be removed from communal areas in flats throughout the country because they are a safety hazard, it has emerged.

The life-saving devices encourage untrained people to fight a fire rather than leave the building, risk assessors in Bournemouth decided.

I weep for the Brits. They’re just in one giant cage that they can’t see the bars of.

Here.

I just ain’t feeling it today. Hence, the linky and not much thinky.

You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a gun blogger in Knoxville. Here’s a new one: Ready on the Right.

Via KAG.

Tennessee is the sixth most dangerous state to live in. Well, we have Memphis.

Talk amongst yourselves.