5-4 decision, one majority, two dissenting opinions. It will be interesting to see where the dissents diverge from the majority opinion and where they concur, but come to different conclusions.
I was expecting Ginsburg and Breyer to agree that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right, but still argue that the DC ban passed whatever “level of scrutiny” they were going to apply, and that Stevens and Souter would dissent on all issues.
So far, it looks like I was wrong, since Stevens and Breyer wrote dissents, and the quotes I’ve seen seem to both argue against an individual right. However, that could just be some selective quoting from the AP. I’ll need to read the opinion, and, damn, I hope it isn’t a 130 page slip opinion like Boumediene was.