[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

[kevkrom]

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.

Oh, I agree. I can almost hear him saying "go ahead, make my day" -- essentially inviting these cases so he can expand on Heller.