MacDonald v Chicago

The whole thing is here, all 65 pages of oral arguments. My overall impression was that Gura and the NRA (Clement) are on the winning side, and Feldman (Chicago) was getting roundly beaten by the justices.

Now, think of this, too: That when you have the First Amendment, or some of the other amendments, there is always a big area where it's free speech versus a whole lot of things, but not often free speech versus life. When it's free speech versus life, we very often decide in favor of life. Here every case will be on one side guns, on the other side human life.

The above from Justice Bryer, who seems to have a problem with the notion of self-defense.

In other areas, the arguments got off onto the notion that since the Framers wrote the Second amendment to prevent the Federal government from disarming the state militias, should the second be interpreted to prevent the states from disarming their own militias. Feldman (Chicago) said yes, which got him painted into the corner of saying that possession of militia arms was OK, but not small pistols.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: What -- in which ways has ordered liberty been badly affected?

MR. GURA: Justice Sotomayor, States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional.

This should appeal to Justice Sotomayor. The justices are big on the concept of "ordered liberty", and lean toward anything that promotes it. While the phrase "self defense" does not appear in the constitution, the concept is understood to be broadly supportive of ordered liberty.

Don't let the 65 page number daunt you, they are double spaced, and in large type, limited to 25 lines per page.