[45Auto]

Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country. Indeed, Emerson does not contend, and the district court did not hold, otherwise. As we have previously noted, it is clear that felons, infants and those of unsound mind may be prohibited from possessing firearms.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

As we have previously noted, it is clear that felons, infants and those of unsound mind may be prohibited from possessing firearms.

Ahhhh, that's the problem they need to solve. They just need to figure out how to make us all felons.

[Don Joe]

"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country. Indeed, Emerson does not contend, and the district court did not hold, otherwise. As we have previously noted, it is clear that felons, infants and those of unsound mind may be prohibited from possessing firearms."

I'm not a lawyer, so my take on that may be skewed, but it looks to me that the above ruling negates all CCW laws except for Vermont's, and means that anyone can carry (i.e., "bear") unless that specific person has been prohibited for non-trivial ("limited, narrowly tailored") reasons.

Comments, anyone?