One example is that every news story I've read states that the ruling affirmed the right to keep a gun in your home. They are always very clear to point out the "in your home" part. This ruling scares the hell out of me.
As I read it, it basically said "Sure, you have aright to own a gun, and keep it in your home for self defense, but the government can regulate, license and restrict what type of gun, under what circumstances you can purchase one, and where, or indeed IF you can take it anywhere else, so long as it's not an outright ban.
So conceivably, they could pass a law stating you can only have a single shot black powder pistol, and it must never leave your home loaded.
Am I wrong?
Before we could at least argue that many of theses restrictions were unconstitutional. But this ruling has basically enshrined many of them.
I just don't see how this is a win for us.
I don't see how this stops the government form making any restrictions on firearms they wish, as long as it falls short of a complete ban.
I hope the future proves me wrong, but I just don't see it.
Then comes all the "reasonable" regulations that I pointed out in my original post. With enough reasonable restrictions on obtaining a "permit" for registering a handgun, then the years it will take to have it go through the court system to hopefully slap them down again. Nothing has really changed with this opinion. It will just take a bit more "creative" legislation to permit, register and qualify any handgun ownership out of existence.
Did anyone actually expect the libtards to roll over and actually agree with the Second? [rhetorical question, I know]