Could any lawyer with expertise in this area please comment on the arguments? Is there any guess as to when the ruling might come down?

Jeff

Seems that it boils down to scrutiny and sensitive places. Since Heller, I've suspected that sensitive places will ultimately turn on whether a place has limited access points and metal detection. How that might play out for schools, I'm still uncertain.

It is the definition of "school" that is important to me. In Florida, we have 3 different definitions of "School" related to firearms. Some of those definitions include colleges and universities.

Many colleges and universities are located in and among our cities and many offer night courses. Parking lots are dark at night. Major city streets crisscross university campuses.

There is nothing magical about a college campus that makes it a sensitive place.

Just my opinion.

Jeff,

1. The court didn't want to touch the second amendment issue. There own rules state that if the ruling on an issue of law, such as the second amendment changing and is now a "Fundamental" right, applied to the states. Their rules say that they can rule on it, instead of sending back to the District court again.

2. The court didn't want to use "Strict" scrutiny, and was looking for any reason to lower the standard of review. (They will use intermediate, hope I'm wrong.)

3. The court wanted to know why the county hadn't changed their ordinance to allow gun shows, since now they will have to rule on it, and they don't want to, as it will apply to the whole 9th circuit and not one county.

4. The court understands that they are going to get spanked a lot more in the USSC, since they are a bunch of tyrants! Not one court, except a circuit court in Wisconsin, has applied the correct standard of review.

5. @ Chuck, expect to see a lawsuit on this sometime this year, not talking about the Colorado case either, but there is one in Virginia to be argued in November that needs to be watched.