Money - the whole country just became shall-issue.
“Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.”
yes but registered.
The scope of this appears limited to home possession...will this change the status quo on concealed carry?
For the ownership of guns in the home, yes. Not for CCW, probably not for open carry. It looks like cities/states can still require licensing and are free to make the licensing restrictions fairly onerous if they want. Let’s face it, proving that a city is enforcing its laws “arbitrarily and capriciously” is pretty darn hard.
What this looks like it does is remove the most drastic of the gun bans, like the District’s. And it builds a firewall that basically says “you can restrict up to here, but no further.” It doesn’t roll back a whole lot, really. It’s a good decision, and a necessary decision. But it’s more of a solid defense than a strong offense.
}:-)4