Mr. Clement seemed to be on the ball, especially, considering the limited scope of their argument.
Was it just me, or did Mr. Chapin representing San Diego state that the statute was an unconstitutional burden, and the sheriff offered relief from that burden?
It seemed that he was dodging all questions, and really had no counter argument to Mr. Clement. Towards the tail end his arguments became a purely emotional appeal.
Mr. Gura hit it out of the park. For those of you disappointed in his argument, what did he miss?
Mr. Whiteside was downright disturbing. He seems to have no understanding of current CA carry laws; was he just trying to make stuff up so the judges would think we have some form of carry? I could swear he told me LOC in my car was perfectly legal.
Mr. Holcomb - not reassuring in any sense of the word.
Ms. Van Aken - orals were just as disorganized Mr. Holcomb. Guns are scary - only those with a badge should carry them.
In summary, I would love to read the defenses' briefs, none of them seemed like they had prepared anything at all. It doesn't seem like there's any way we can lose either Peruta or Richards. Therefore, echoing everyone else, I predict a loss across the board.
Now that we've listened to all of that, let's wait for the ruling, and kcbrown to be correct. The real world does not tolerate optimism!
Where's my sammich? I need to prepare for me nap.