Everything soounded pretty good. Mr. Gura, Mr. Hellers attorney, got a little nervous and started talking about machine guns, but overall did pretty well. Mr. Dellinger, who is the attorney for DC, to me sounded like he got his ass handed to him, but that's just my opinion.
Keep in mind that the case is structured to get the Supreme Court to say the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not to get them to back off of the NFA or Huges Amendment or any other laws. Baby steps.
What I thought was most interesting about the whole thing is how a silly Hollywood myth could make its way into oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, arguing for the respondent and in response to Justice Ginsburg, brings up the topic of plastic guns that evade metal detectors even though there is no such thing.
From the transcripts, page 29 line 18:
GENERAL CLEMENT: Absolutely, Justice Ginsburg, and just -- I mean, to give you a clear example, we would take the position that the kind of plastic guns or guns that are specifically designed to evade metal detectors that are prohibited by Federal law are not "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment and are not protected at all.
It's this sort of trash that makes my blood boil. This of course would be the perpetuating myth from movies like In The Line of Fire and Die Hard 2:
"That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me. You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It dosen't show up on you airport X-ray machines, and it cost more than you make here in a month."
The anti gunners like to ask why we get pissed about little details when they call any type of firearm an "assault weapon." This is why.
Overall I think the court will rule in favor of individual rights, as they should. How we got to this point in history where this right actually has to be argued in the Supreme Court says alot about where our society is headed.