[kevkrom]

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.

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.

[infowarrior]

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.

True enough, but he did serve some notice on the more restrictive states that "arbitrary, and capricious" isn't gonna pass Constitutional muster, so cases will need to be brought forward, using the precedent held here. There *will* be further cases, and the scope of the limitations of regulation will be fleshed out.

Where this limitation of regulation will settle remains to be seen yet. What *is* established is that outright bans are *not* Constitutional...

the infowarrior

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks KevKrom. I haven’t read all the way through it yet. I appreciate your take on it.