[Paleo Conservative]

Given the theory behind the case, I can see how this might be a Constitutionally correct decision.

That's how I read it. I think there ought to be a rather stiff processing fee of perhaps $1,000 for a convicted to apply for a waiver. That ought to weed out unworthy applicants. I'm pretty much unsympathic to convicted felons who want to own firearms. There aren't very many whom I would trust.

I think the court was really saying it is up to Congress to change the law if it wants to.

[Physicist]

I think the court was really saying it is up to Congress to change the law if it wants to.

I think the law is flatly Unconstitutional, and would be found to be so by the Supreme Court. But this particular case didn't hinge upon the Constitutionality of this law per se, so this Supreme Court felt it out of place to express any opinion to that effect. To have done so would have been judicial activism.

[RKV]

I wish you would open your eyes to what is happening in Massachusetts, Maryland, Illinois, California, New York and Hawaii. Gun owners are being turned into felons for no other crime than possessing a gun. They tell you that they get to "regulate the militia," but what they really want is to disarm them. Gun owners rarely vote RAT, so the RATs want to chase them out of the state by making criminals out of them, or if they stay, to disenfranchise them by convicting them of a felony.