It was OK. His mushy middle does not satisfy me, and while I suspect that he'd have a rhetorical place to put me for that reason, I think he'd be wrong. The current Heller status quo doesn't give me the clarity that would make me feel more confident around the whole issue. He seemed a little confused, or at least inconsistent, at the end in talking about the role of the Court and the law in relation to social progress.

Pretty good read in the middle, some neat interwoven tales and the narrative of the Heller litigation is good. It was the silly front (ridiculous caricature need to support his equivalence argument, which I find false) and the unsatisfying end that prove problematic for me.

I learned a lot, maybe three stars is too low, but four feels too generous. Call it three and a half.