[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Bottom line, if they can regualte it, it is not a right. "Shall not be infringed" must have meant something else a couple hundred years ago.

The "reasonably restrictions for unfit persons" refers of course to men being sued for divorce.
Of course THEY don't ever want it tested.
There is the danger that the supreme court might actually compare Olsen's contention to "shall not be infringed".

[Texasforever]

There is the danger that the supreme court might actually compare Olsen's contention to "shall not be infringed".

However; the question WILL be raised because of this opinion and it WILL be decided in the USSC with the Solicitor General arguing it. No, tanks, grenades, bombs and missiles are not going to be sold in the neighborhood army surplus store, but if you can't recognize this as a sea change in government (administration) opinion there may be nothing that could sway you.

[Hard Case]

It's great (by great, I mean sad) to watch them do a running interpretation on the Second Amendment. Every year the Founders intent on having a well-armed and well-regulated (i.e. well practiced) society is softened just a little. The movement towards total disarmament is undeniable.