My take

[iiibbb]

This ruling came out as I expected.

I was a little surprised about the 5-4. In my mind the meaning of the 2nd is pretty obvious. We often hear the Constitution called a "living document". Unfortunately, judges aren't who make it live, we do. If society has changed to the point that we collectively decide guns have no place, then the appropriate way to reflect this change is to amend the Constitution. That's how the Constitution "lives"

I haven't read the decision yet, but some of the snippits I heard from the descent were a little silly.

I feel this 4 on the opposing side are trying to say what they think the law should be... not what the Constitution says it is. I would have thought the vote would've gon 6-3 at worse.

I was listening to the Sirus Left channel yesterday and people were off the hook declaring that there would be blood on the streets etc etc. Pure hyperbole.


I generally think this ruling will have little effect on the status quo except to ban outright prohibition of guns (or effective prohibitions like mandating the weapon be disassembled). I certainly think it is silly to claim that this will significantly affect violence or accidents. Those who commit crime will continue to do so. Those who fail to store guns in a safe manner will continue to do so. Society is better served by concentrating issues like poverty, education, and equality. If we can have an effect on those things we will have a far more profound effect on gun violence than any "sensible" gun control.

Even then the heralding of death and despair as a result of this decision is misplaced.

The decision clearly left the door wide open for individual states to continue to pass laws governing weapons in public places, as well as where and how they may be carried. Specifically, this ruling doesn't mean that people can suddenly conceal carry without a permit. It doesn't mean a state can't declare certain areas off limits. It doesn't mean that states can't limit the number of gun purchases. It doesn't disqualify short waiting periods. It doesn't disqualify training requirements. It doesn't even seem to disqualify an AWB if states took the time to "standardize" militia arms.

The only thing it disqualifies is outright prohibition. No big whoop.

[SteveM]

1. I agree. A very "conservative" ruling (nt)