Several commentators have had a chance to review the transcripts in today's oral argument (found here) in DC v. Heller. All seem to be saying the same thing: the majority of the Supreme Court seemed ready to recognize an individual right to bear arms, a right not constrained by belonging to a militia.
I've not had an opportunity to read all 110 pages of the transcripts yet today, but as some of the folks at SCOTUSBlog pointed out during their "live" blog session today, what the Justices said at argument today may not mean much. That isn't to say that the collectivist view will win the day, but the opinions will certainly have a lively discussion over how strong an individual right to guns might be. How strong must a government interest be to limit an individual's right to bear arms, if that is at all possible?
That's probably the best place to start the discussion. What kind of government interest do you think warrants intrusion on the individual right to bear arms? Is there any government interest at all? Or are you out in left field, still banging the drum for a collectivist right?
To the comment thread!