Wednesday, March 26, 2008

DC v. Heller (Redux)

Instead of the usual con-law class, we're sitting here listening to the oral arguments in the District of Columbia v. Heller case.

Our take:

Let the democratically elected government of DC decide how to regulate its guns. We've been to the Navy Yard, and, again, if there's one thing DC doesn't need, it's more firepower. When we got jumped on the green line (near the U-St. & Cardozo stop in NW) a few years ago - we're damned happy our attackers didn't have ready access to handguns (and so were made short work of by our fists).

Delinger (for the District) does a good job. The lack of folk-song references makes for a slightly weaker oral argument, but nonetheless he knows his stuff, and responded to Scalia's interruptions well. But the judges - especially Kennedy - seem skeptical.

Clement (for Heller, i.e., doesn't like the gun ban).  OK, he's also doing a good job.  But, that doesn't make him right.

This concludes our comprehensive legal analysis of the oral arguments.  

No comments: