I originally saw this from Michael Bane, but didn’t get around to it until today. Looks like the Supreme Court granted a motion to allow the solicitor general to argue on the side of Washington DC for an addition 15 minutes over the time alloted for DC’s attorneys.  Dave Hardy weighs in on this too:
Hard to read much into it, beyond the fact that it gives a tactical advantage to DC. 45 minutes of argument for reversing D.C. Circuit, only 30 of argument for affirmance. DC can probably figure the SG won’t use a lot of time arguing for the individual right. The key to the SG getting where they want to go is standard of review, intermediate rather than strict scrutiny, so that’s where the SG will spend his time. DC can cut back on argument over standard of review — which might have occupied half their time, and more than half if they appeared to be losing on individual right — and use the time elsewhere.
So Bush’s Solictor General is not only going to file the brief, but he’s going to argue in front of the Supreme Court against gun owners! Am I surprised? No. Bush’s strategy has been to throw gun owners token gestures, but to do nothing, or actively screw us on stuff that really matters.
Do I regret voting for the bastard? No. Because if we had been stuck with 8 years of Al Gore, or Kerry, the outcome of this case would be a foredrawn conclusion, and that conclusion would be we’d flat out lose. The Socilitor General is offering The Court the option of handing us a win on the individual rights count, but handing DC a win in terms of getting the case remanded, and forcing us to go through this process all over again.
I fully believe if the case is remanded, the district court will uphold DC’s ban as a reasonable exercise of governmental power to limit the second amendment. We will have to appeal, possibly winning at the circuit court again, and the fight will continue. But the Supreme Court probably won’t touch another gun case for a while, letting the lower courts hash through the new precident. End result is nothing changes much, but it’s an individual right. The real danger is a strongly anti-gun president stacks the court with justices who would be willing to overturn or severely restrict the scope of the second amendment post Heller, and when the next case goes before The Supreme Court, we end up with a constitutional right that’s individual and not collective, but still doesn’t mean anything.