McDonald v. Chicago Hearings Today: Looks Good for Guns, Probably not so Good for the Privileges or Immunities Clause

I'll be writing a full account of what went on today and its likely meaning that should be up at Reason Online in a couple of days, but for those eager for a quick blow-by-blow by a very educated 2nd and 14th Amendment maven, Josh Blackman, do go read what he had to say about what happened this morning.

My very quick take: the Justices were pretty rough on lead lawyers for both sides, Alan Gura and James Feldman, for different reasons, which makes the most likely looking outcome right now a victory for plaintiff Otis McDonald and his team, but not a victory achieved through the overturning of the SlaughterHouse cases and a revival of the 14th Amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause. That is, the Second Amendment will likely apply to the states, but the full contours of what that means will play out in many, many future legal challenges to state and local gun regulations.

And for those who need to be reminded what I'm talking about, see yesterday's link summation of Reason's very thorough coverage of McDonald and the important privileges or immunities questions raised by it.