best thing on the surface of it is the official recognition that the 2nd is an individual right and not a collective privelege.
The decision will have to work it's way down thru the lower courts as individual federal/state/local ststutes are challenged in part or whole.
I believe that the only immediate law overturned would be the DC ban that was the subject of the appeal. From what i understand there are only one or two other similar complete/absolute bans in place which would obviously be the initial "easy pickins" targets of litigation. After that would come all the grey/partial legal challenges and counters of "new/improved" political twistings to accomplish the same thing without actually saying so directly (IT all depends on what the meaning of "is" is).
I have only heard the blurbs from the poeple who have read the initial entry statement of the decision and the dissent. What will be interesting is all the fine points inside of it and how they play out downstream.
a couple of thoughts are; The main ruling says that it is based on the right to keep a gun for hunting and self defense that is not dependant on membership in the (gov't) "militia" (ie Nat'l guard, reserve, etc).
Does it make the case that there is a right of actual self defense and not just to have the tools available to do so? Some states/localities directly or indirectly say that is NOT the case and that you MUST retreat when threatened. NJ Supreme court recently ruled that way but left the door slightly open so that if you cannot retreat and it is your life that is in immediate danger you MIGHT be able to defend yourself. a secndary matter is whether that right of self defense extends to other people who you would defend and property and to what extent.
That would also beg the question if the law states that the gun must be locked away, unloaded &/or disassembled to prevent easy access (You might hurt yourelf or some tow headed fidget) when needed for self defense can that be shot down due to this ruling? I did hear that part of the ruling and dissent addressed that portion of the DC laws but haven't gotten the in-depth analysis on it yet.
I would also like to see the analysis of the ruling and whether it addresses/clarifies the meaning of "Militia" and the term "well regulated" as written. at the time of writing the bill of rights "well regualated" did not mean controlled/managed/licnesed by laws/bureaucrats but the form of military defense where "regulated fire" by a line of soldiers was a primary tactic of armies and to be well regulated would mean the efficient/accurate/repetitive use of this tactic during a battle.
While on the general subject was the historical definition of a Militia addressed since at the time of writing it was not a government paid/controlled standing/ready/reserve army (or police force) as the current national guard/reserves/etc are configured but more of every able bodied civilian man who would come to the local/state/national defense in time of need.
And I am sure that there are many other hair splitting/grey areas that will arrise to keep lawyers on all sides as well as shifty politicians with new twisted schemes busy for a very long time.
Opinions/speculation from the lawyers and histroians would be appreciated.
