Tom Goldstein - Quoting the syllabus: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
They can't reverse it now, can they? I know BO is for "reasonable restrictions," which in his mind include a total ban, but isn't the issue settled, except for what TRULY reasonable restrictions are? I'm not an expert on SCOTUS issues, maybe Aught or someone can chime in here...
Great news! Indeed, it is well worth remembering the role of the US president in appointing supreme court justices and what impact that has on gun owners, as this case shows.
Some are fond of heaping blame for all problems at George Bush's door, as if his powers were not expressly delimited by the constitution. The poor economy (not granting such, as personally I'm doing pretty well and North Texas generally also), Global Warming, etc., etc. Let's remember, when piling up the blame, that George appointed two good strong conservative US supreme court justices and that this stood gun owners in good stead in this moment of great importance. Consider, for a moment, where we would be if the decision instead had found that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms but only a collective right in connection with service in a state militia? Give that some thought, y'all.
On another related topic, how could 4 of the justices vote in dissent on this issue?
I think that folks will work the "reasonable restrictions" angle to push for assault weapons bans and maybe try to limit the kind of handguns people can own. But, based on my reading of it, they now can't do much about Joe Blow that wants to keep a six-shooterin his night stand.
__________________
"Shoot him again....his soul is still dancing"
We Win
