The Supreme Court concluded on page 67 that "Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

That might be a huge leap for Heller, but the thought of licensing and registering firearms and limiting my range of bearing them to the interior of my home doesn't assure us very much in the way of rights. 

Here is a link to the 157 page opinion.  Overall, I found it distressing.  It may help a few like Heller who live in cities where they have implemented total bans, but it also poses serious threats to the rest of us.  Yikes!

I agree with Dave.  This ruling merely rejects one of the most ridiculous regulatory bans one could imagine.  Trigger locks, disassembly, etc.  The problem remains that there are still thousands of bureaucrats and politicians who have to look busy to justify their jobs and who knows what they're planning. 

You don't have to outlaw cars to limit their ownership and use -- just raise taxes on gas.  You don't have to outlaw guns to limit their ownership and use -- just...
** Raise taxes on ammunition
** Require insurance
** Require periodic inspections
** Invent new situations to deprive possession
The list is endless.

Mark

Prepare for a surreal moment.  Let me share statements by two dissenting Supreme Court Justices regarding the Heller case.  I found these statements on Yahoo at this link:   http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

#1) Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

#2) Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

#1 is like saying "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate speech using the Internet." 

#2 is simply insane. It's like saying, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights for a journalist to keep a few unpublished articles written last year in reserve for times when he has a deadline and writer's block." 

These aren't two half-drunk loudmouths drinking in their backyards.  These are Supreme Court Justices.  I would be terribly embarrassed if I had made statements like those.

Mark

PS -- Although the half-drunk thing might explain it.  You could carry a flask or two under those long robes.

Me too. This should have been an easy 9-0 vote. The whole intention of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution regardless of one's opinion about the case. Glad to see the LP is making a point.