if there is a change of QA, i would be curious about one thing in the whole heller thing.
how the the phrase "in the home" get so heavily worked into this?
in reading some of the analysis, it seems that by focusing on the complete ban, and phrasing it something like "banned everywhere, even at home" was probably part of the reason, but it just seems that in scalia's writing of the opinion, all the anti folks seize on that, as saying that's the be all/end all of gun ownership.
also, it seems that the consolidation of several cases into the heller case was part of it as well.
i'd be curious as to his thoughts, from the guy involved.
scotus also focus a bit on licensing requirements, and a few of the synopsis i've read note that there was no mention/complaint about them, as far as thinking that was called into issue, by the heller case.
i think scalia phrased it something like "but the plantiff didn't argue with licensing in oral arguments."
i do find that a bit odd, in regard to it not being mentioned being an issue. specifically from the perspective that oral arguments are very limited in time in these hearings. i didn't read the individual briefs filed with the case to see if they made any mention.
in listening to some of the cases lately, the MD ar/mag ban hearings, and one of the cali cases, i think it was peruta, each side only got 30 minutes and some questions from the court.
considering what we are seeing these days, the way the court viewed the case, and the way scalia phrased things, it wasn't as solid a victory as folks thought.
a few of the phrases written are biting us today, and i think the liberals refuse more gun cases because it could remove clear things up in a way to remove some of the anti-2a laws.
phrases like:
"in the home"
"the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..."
"Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement."
and several others just seem to be the focus of the anti forces.