[Petruchio]

Georgetown Law Professor Paul Rothstein suggests that that may be just the beginning, explaining: “I do not think any of them [the Supreme Court justices] would take the view that there is an absolute right to bear arms.” In the end he predicts: “The likelihood is that it will be held that there is an individual right that gives way to a strong, specific state interest expressed in a relatively narrowly tailored legislative provision, under some type of ‘intermediate scrutiny’ test.”

What the Hell does That mean?

[neverdem]

What the Hell does That mean?

Weasel words to infringe?

[Billthedrill]

What the Hell does That mean?

It is a little vague - I interpret it as referring to a decision in favor of individual rights in the matter that still leaves a loophole for whatever legislation Congress cares to propose. Having one's cake and eating it too, in essence.

The real difficulty is what happens to the considerable body of existing law should its underlying premise be stricken down. For example, does a gun store operator still have to keep his paperwork in this case? What if he doesn't? And who will decide?

Even under the best of circumstances, a ringing endorsement of the Second as a fundamental individual right, the fight will not be over. We're in this for the long run.

[Sender]

It means that even if the 2A is confirmed as an individual right, the individual states have the right to impose infringement as they see fit.