Another round of lawyers, guns and money

I cannot help thinking about the late great Warren Zevon and his great homage to the Cold War as I see all the media buzz over the Heller Second Amendment case to be argued in the Supreme Court tomorrow (lots of links thanks to How Appealing here and here). 

It is especially interesting to think about the Heller case against the backdrop of yesterday’s interesting NY Times article titled “Supreme Court Inc,” which documents how the Justices’ recent work has been “exceptionally good for American business.”  What sort of Second Amendment ruling would be good for business.  Perhaps counter-intuitively, I actually think that a rejection of broad individual Second Amendment rights will be good for business because I suspect a broad individual rights ruling could (and likely would) increase pressure on gun manufacturers to accept regulation of their products and a greater number of tort suits brought against gun sellers.

Some of my prior posts on Heller and the Second Amendment:

• Criminal mistakes in analysis of Heller hysteria
• Do any Second Amendment amici oppose extreme gun crime sentencing?
• More thoughts about the scope of Second Amendment rights
• Are Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart and millions of others not among the Constitution’s “people”?
• Even the NRA, while urging Second Amendment strict scrutiny, thinks Martha Stewart and Lewis Libby have no gun rights
• Thoughtful analysis of the realities of Second Amendment litigation
• Concerns about concerns about the recognition of serious gun rights
• Isn’t the SG just too smart about the criminal justice fall-out from broad Second Amendment rights?
• What might Second Amendment strict scrutiny mean for strict gun laws?
• After 220 years, should the Second Amendment stay minimalist?