[El Gato]

The 5 to 4 ruling concluded that the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to possess guns for self-defense but said governments may impose reasonable restrictions. The lawsuit filed yesterday in U.S District Court says the District's restrictions go too far.

No they did not. They said the second amendment *protects* a right of individuals. They didn't exactly say reasonable restrictions were OK, they listed some restriction that would be OK, such as felon in possession. They specifically mentioned that there can be no "balancing" of the right against some "public good", as one of the dissents would have allowed.

[xjcsa]

They didn't exactly say reasonable restrictions were OK, they listed some restriction that would be OK, such as felon in possession.

They didn't exactly say even that - they just said that nothing in the opinion should be construed so as to prevent such restrictions, as such restrictions had not been challenged. They did not close off the idea of challenging those restrictions, although they did not leave the option as pointedly open as they did the licensing/registration requirements. It seemed like Scalia was almost inviting a challenge of those requirements, at least as I read it.

[JamesP81]

They specifically mentioned that there can be no "balancing" of the right against some "public good"

This is in the majority opinion?