What happens next?

An opinion is expected in June, correct?

Do the volume of amici briefs help form a decision? (Heller seems to have considerably more and from seemingly diverse platforms.)

Have these judges generally split along ideological lines?

How much influence do the oral arguments have?

Thanks

Good questions and I am not sure of the next steps but I think it went very well.

No one, not even the attorney for DC, questioned that the 2nd Amendment provides for an individual right, so that should be pretty much a forgone conclusion. However, the main line of questioning seemed to revolve around what kinds of restrictions &/or regulations might be considered "reasonable". I believe that will be where the main area disagreement will be, and that will determine the scope of the decision.

I have my own ideas about how it'll turn out, but the prediction game is not my thing. I'll just say that I'm optimistic...

Well, I can throw out my uninformed opinions with the best of them.

Stevens is the only vote for a collective right.

Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia are solid votes for an individual right subject to strict scrutiny.

Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer are votes for an individual right subject to some lesser standard of review.

And Kennedy seems to be a negotiable vote for an individual right subject to strict scrutiny.

So it comes down to Kennedy - if he decides that strict scrutiny is of foremost importance, we'll have a 5-4 strict scrutiny decision, or if he decides that bringing on a larger majority matters, we'll have a 6-3 or 7-2 intermediate decision that nevertheless overturns the ban.

Unless, of course, they decide to follow Robert''s lead, and decide for an individual right, overturn the ban, and punt on the standard of review.

Uninformed pontificating aside, they're going to spend the next three months sending arguments back and forth among each other, and if there are any of them who are entirely impervious to the influence of their colleagues' arguments, they should have never been appointed to the Court in the first place.

So, in truth, it's absurd to read too much into what they said in the orals.

I'm feeling confident. Gura made the most important point clearly - D.C. does not have a self-defense exception, regardless of what Dellinger said. And that Dellinger was lying through his teeth on that point can't serve his case.