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.
A skim on my part says that Stevens argues against an individual right, and that Breyer merely argues that the DC gun ban is reasonable, regardless of the question of individual right.
Stevens wrote the dissent, and all 4 concurred.
His dissent is radical and striking, going well beyond the gun issue.
In the view of the minority (soon to be a majority if Obama is elected), "right of the People" does not guarantee ANY right to ANY individual which is not subsumed by the collective.
This is an extremely radical opinion, basically ending Liberty in favor of Equality and Fraternity, and it's one vote away from being the law of the land.