The same thought occured to me as I was reading Scalia's opinion. Can the state, by its prior regulatory actions, be allowed to make some arms "uncommon", and then use that fact to prevent peacable citizens from owning "such an instrument"?
I would argue not, but that and three bucks would get you a cup of coffee these days.
I don't like the notion of relying on the courts to preserve our essential liberties (though in the present instance things broke in favor of liberty).
“I don’t like the notion of relying on the courts to preserve our essential liberties.” Me neither. BUT the political elites don’t trust us plebes to have the same arms that their employees have. This ruling is better than nothing, but really what is needed is legislatures that a) want to keep their offices and b) know that voting for “gun-control” legislation is going prevent them from doing a. It doesn’t rely on any more than self interest on the part of the elected to work. ;>)