While I agree with you, the references to “licenses” and “in the home” and “restrictions” and “types of guns” and “felons” leads me to believe that these justices believe in a whole lot of limits on Second Amendment rights despite their seeming appearance of coming down on our side.
I will read this thing in it’s entireity, before I jump for joy, because I’m not sure we should be jumping for joy just yet. It sounds to me like governments can still cause a lot of mischief here.
Scalia's opinion basically limits itself to the case at hand, which requires these terms. Toward the end, he clearly contemplates that this decision will lead to further cases, but he defers opinion on those questions for now, since they were not germane to the specific case.
It pretty much clarifies that RKBA is not in any way dependent on a military function.
So an 86 year old grandma who lives alone can lawfully protect herself.
I see the licensing issue as being somewhat moot now. What this means to me is that the burden of proof to show that someone may be part of some type of class who would not be allowed is shifted - that class must be clearly and meaningfully defined, and somehow posted in a way that it is common knowledge.
There has to be affirmative, undeniable, reasonable grounds to ever deny RKBA.
There are already plenty of restrictions. The question remains -- how many more and how severe. The best thing that came out of this case was affirmation of an individual (vs collective (=nonsense)) right to "keep and bear" arms. Now, it's going to get down to the definitions of "keep" and "bear". IMO, licensing will be the next big hurdle. Is a license required for any of the other inalienable rights? Answer = NO!
Right. I'm not a lawyer but if I am reading the decision correctly it appears that many of the present infringements on the right to keep and bear arms will still be allowable under this ruling. For one example NYC can still keep it's strict Sullivan law which makes it extremely difficult and expensive for an ordinary NYC resident to legally buy and keep a handgun. Chicago's gun licensing law is more like the D.C. law that was invalidated, so it may be challenged and quite possibly invalidated as well. However I don't see anything in the decision that will help people in "may issue" or "no issue" states obtain concealed carry licenses, or that will void laws such as those regulating magazine capacity, barrel length, stock configuration, types of ammunition, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I am delighted that the court confirmed what everyone knows but many won't admit, i.e., that 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right rather than just a state's right to maintain an armed militia. We were only one vote away from losing whatever protection the 2nd Amendment now provides, and thereby opening the floodgates to a deluge of new and even more oppressive gun laws. I hope every gun owner will join me in thanking God for President Bush and his two SCOTUS appointments. If Kerry had won Ohio in '04 we would now be looking at a 6-3 SCOTUS decision overturning the D.C. circuit and opening the doors to any kind of gun ban or anti-gun scheme the antis could persuade or pay off a Democrat controlled Congress to pass.
By the same token, if Obama is elected and teamed with a Democrat Congress because many conservatives refuse to vote for McCain we can expect a liberal, activist SCOTUS in the near future, and a deluge of decisions that will change the way we live and conduct our lives in so many ways we won't recognize the US as our once free homeland. I neither trust nor like McCain, but comparing him to Obama is like comparing day to night.