[robertpaulsen]

"I understand that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is with Silberman on this ruling's logic"

I'd need to see that in writing.

Certainly if SCOTUS rules an individual right, that would be cause for celebration. But it wouldn't change anything.

First, it would apply only to the federal government. Second, Congress can still move forward with legislation like the AWB that's in the House -- even this decision admitted that.

I'd like to see a state bring a suit saying that the federal AWB infringes on the state's ability to form a Militia since the AWB (and the NFA and the GCA) prohibits the very arms they wish their citizens to keep and bear. AND file that suit in the 9th Circuit since they're the ones who are already on record saying the second amendment protects the formation of a state Militia!

Ah, we can only dream.

[Pharmboy]

From the Times article:

The majority in yesterday’s decision pointed to a 1998 dissent in which “at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read ‘bear arms’ in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering.” They were former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in 2005, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter.