Post Info on DC Gun Ban / 2nd Amendment Supreme Court Ruling Here

[Route24]

No ruling on D.C.'s gun ban today
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=596&sid=1426781

June 23, 2008 - 10:24am

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court won't give its ruling in the D.C. gun ban case Monday.
The court has scheduled a special session for Wednesday.

The law, which banned private ownership of handguns in the District, was taken to the Supreme Court after the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the law violates the Second Amendment.

The crux of the argument is to focus on whether the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms or protects the right of states to maintain militias.

This is the high court's first comprehensive review of the Second Amendment. The court's ruling will have ramifications across the country.

D.C.'s ban, which is the toughest in the country, has attracted attention from states across the nation. Virginia, Arkansas and Texas are joining in the challenge of the ban, while Maryland, New York, Illinois and Hawaii, are backing the measure.

While city leaders say the law keeps guns off District streets, police have confiscated numerous weapons that have been traced to shops in Maryland and Virginia. District police seized 2,924 guns in 2007 alone.

Back in March, when the case came before the court, here were some of the arguments:

"At the end of the day, I think, however one resolves those great theoretical and constitutional issues, we come down to the fact that this is an extremely reasonable law. Because the District of Columbia really thought this through. And they allowed rifles and shotguns. They believe in the right of people to be able to defend their homes."
- Lawyer Walter Dellinger, representing the District of Columbia

"This morning the Supreme Court heard arguments about whether or not the Second Amendment actually means anything. Is it some sort of a relic of the past that has no operative force today? Does it guarantee a right to follow military orders, or does it do what most Americans understand it does, guarantees an individual right of American citizens to defend themselves and their families in their own homes with simple, ordinary firearms, including handguns."
- Lawyer Alan Gura, representing clients seeking to overturn the District of Columbia gun ban

"I have said many, many times as police chief in Washington, D.C., and after policing here in this city for nearly 18 years that the issue with handguns to me is very clear. A weapon that is easily concealed, that can be taken inside of schools, inside of churches, inside of government buildings without anyone's knowledge ... is something that we don't want in the District of Columbia."
- Police Chief Cathy Lanier

"The Constitution does not end at the borders of the District of Columbia. The citizens of Washington, D.C., enjoy all the constitutional rights that every citizen enjoys, including the right to shoot and bear arms."
- Clark Neily, co-counsel

(Copyright 2008 by WTOP. All Rights Reserved.)

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court won't give its ruling in the D.C. gun ban case Monday.
The court has scheduled a special session for Wednesday.

The law, which banned private ownership of handguns in the District, was taken to the Supreme Court after the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the law violates the Second Amendment.

The crux of the argument is to focus on whether the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms or protects the right of states to maintain militias.

This is the high court's first comprehensive review of the Second Amendment. The court's ruling will have ramifications across the country.

D.C.'s ban, which is the toughest in the country, has attracted attention from states across the nation. Virginia, Arkansas and Texas are joining in the challenge of the ban, while Maryland, New York, Illinois and Hawaii, are backing the measure.

While city leaders say the law keeps guns off District streets, police have confiscated numerous weapons that have been traced to shops in Maryland and Virginia. District police seized 2,924 guns in 2007 alone.

Back in March, when the case came before the court, here were some of the arguments:

"At the end of the day, I think, however one resolves those great theoretical and constitutional issues, we come down to the fact that this is an extremely reasonable law. Because the District of Columbia really thought this through. And they allowed rifles and shotguns. They believe in the right of people to be able to defend their homes."
- Lawyer Walter Dellinger, representing the District of Columbia

"This morning the Supreme Court heard arguments about whether or not the Second Amendment actually means anything. Is it some sort of a relic of the past that has no operative force today? Does it guarantee a right to follow military orders, or does it do what most Americans understand it does, guarantees an individual right of American citizens to defend themselves and their families in their own homes with simple, ordinary firearms, including handguns."
- Lawyer Alan Gura, representing clients seeking to overturn the District of Columbia gun ban

"I have said many, many times as police chief in Washington, D.C., and after policing here in this city for nearly 18 years that the issue with handguns to me is very clear. A weapon that is easily concealed, that can be taken inside of schools, inside of churches, inside of government buildings without anyone's knowledge ... is something that we don't want in the District of Columbia."
- Police Chief Cathy Lanier

"The Constitution does not end at the borders of the District of Columbia. The citizens of Washington, D.C., enjoy all the constitutional rights that every citizen enjoys, including the right to shoot and bear arms."
- Clark Neily, co-counsel

[Route24]

Supreme Court Expected To Rule On D.C. Gun Ban
http://www.nbc4.com/politics/16689571/detail.html
POSTED: 6:53 pm EDT June 23, 2008
UPDATED: 7:49 pm EDT June 23, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this week on the District's strict handgun ban.

The controversial gun control case is being watched closely by lawyers on both sides.

Before a packed courtroom in March, justices heard arguments in the case that could overturn the city's 1977 handgun ban, which is the strictest in the nation. The city argues that the law is reasonable and that it curbs violent crime that would get worse with legal handguns in homes. Opponents say the law violates the Second Amendment right to defend the home and has had no impact on city violence.

If the ban is overturned, it will probably be a few weeks before it takes effect in the city, said Clark Neily, an attorney for plaintiffs seeking to overturn the handgun ban.

If the city loses, the District could ask for time to adjust D.C.'s law from an outright ban to regulations that meet the court ruling, which could take weeks or months, said District officials who declined to comment on camera.

City officials said they're prepared for any ruling but upholding the ban would be a victory for citizen safety.

Some attorneys said a broad ruling upholding the law could tempt other jurisdictions to toughen their gun laws -- but not without a major political fight.

The Supreme Court also could return the case to lower courts for more arguments.

[xTruthSeekerx]

the march for gun round ups begins soon..

[Nailer]

The  Heller VS.  D.C   case  on the 2nd amendment ruling was supposed to be made in june (this month) and I have not read anything on any ruling  from the supreme court.

Does anyone know anything new on the case and our 2nd amendment rights?

[HeismaN]

Thanks for the info, I can't wait to see the Supreme Court Ruling.

[UNITEDWEREFALLING]

Wednesday the 25th or next week. Larry Pratt from Gun Owners of America is on today. Tuesday.

[Route24]

Major Decisions Expected Today From US Supreme Court
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200806/NAT20080625c.html
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
June 25, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Does the District of Columbia's ban on handgun ownership violate the Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"? Is it cruel and unusual punishment to execute child rapists? The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hand down rulings in those major cases on Wednesday.

A federal appeals court in the District of Columbia struck down the city's 31-year-old handgun ban in March, ruling in favor of several Washington residents who wanted guns for self-defense.

The court ruled that "the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."

The city appealed to the Supreme Court. "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked at one point during oral arguments in March.

Even a major gun-control group has called this "the most significant Second Amendment case in the nation's history."

Even a major gun-control group has called this "the most significant Second Amendment case in the nation's history."

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence urged the Supreme Court to "uphold the right of people in communities like the District to enact common sense gun measures they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families."

A ruling that the District's gun ban is unconstitutional "would grant courts unprecedented authority to nullify elected officials' decisions to adopt laws they believe are necessary to protect their communities from gun violence," the Brady Campaign says on its Web site.

The other major ruling expected Wednesday stems from an appeal by Patrick Kennedy of Louisiana, who was sentenced to death for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter. More to come.

[Route24]

Wednesday the 25th or next week. Larry Pratt from Gun Owners of America is on today. Tuesday.

From the sound of it, it will be today.

[menace]

So  no info on the D.C. Gun ban but rulings on other issues.


The Supreme Court has struck down a Louisiana law that allows the execution of people convicted of a raping a child

In a 5-4 vote, the court says the law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in cases of child rape violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.

There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday also cut the $2.5 billion punitive damages award in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $500 million.

The court ruled that victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history may collect punitive damages from Exxon Mobil Corp., but not as much as a federal appeals court determined.

Justice David Souter wrote for the court that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, about $500 million compensation.

Exxon asked the high court to reject the punitive damages judgment, saying it already has spent $3.4 billion in response to the accident that fouled 1,200 miles of Alaska coastline.

A jury decided Exxon should pay $5 billion in punitive damages. A federal appeals court cut that verdict in half.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_rdp

[Route24]

Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Expected Tomorrow
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/supreme_court_gun_ban_ruling_p.html?hpid=news-col-blog

The U.S. Supreme Court today did not release its long-awaited ruling on whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. That means the potentially landmark decision will almost certainly come tomorrow morning when the court is planning to issue the last of its rulings for the term. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, could settle the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.

Mayor Adrain M. Fenty is planning to hold a news conference at the John A. Wilson Building after the decision is announced.

Paul Duggan

By Marcia Davis |  June 25, 2008; 12:37 PM ET 

[Mythandariel]

The reason the Supreme Court is holding back its ruling is because their trying to decide how best to spin this. Their main goal is to render Gun Rights Advocates impotent with false head-doctor spin and Prime Time psy-ops.

[Freeski]

The reason the Supreme Court is holding back its ruling is because their trying to decide how best to spin this. Their main goal is to render Gun Rights Advocates impotent with false head-doctor spin and Prime Time psy-ops.

But what about their own children?

[moxiez]

I can't wait to see how they spin the BS.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[JonTheSavage]

Well, if handguns are banned, it will give me an excuse to throw my rifle over my shoulder, and walk around with it in public. 

[Mythandariel]

But what about their own children?

They do this because the powers that be have threatened their children. I can guarantee that with near certainty.

[menace]

"It's for the children!" I really think they mean that it's for thier own Children.  With new laws pass giving them more power, thier children will  have when they get older to follow in thier footsteps.

[IridiumKEPfactor]

I just woke up a few minutes ago. I turned on the TV and my local news was on. They had some guy from Taser International on talking about tasers saying that he prefer that people have tasers because they don't cause death*  . I would not be surpised if the Supreme Court brings up non-leathal* weapons and how they may not have been available durring the founding of the country and that we have that option now. And if crime is a concern taser are just as effective and will allow law enforcement to arrest an attacker.   I'm just throwing things out there but it just got my mind going when I saw that Taser guy on. I might just buy me a frame and a receiver if things don't go well.

[HeismaN]

D.C. gun ban struck down.

[SuzakaDusk]

Breaking News The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the Washington D.C. ban on handguns.
Via Cnn
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

Story Highlights
NEW: Justices split 5-4 in favor of overturning Washington's handgun ban

Ruling could spark debate on whether right to own gun is collective or individual

Virginia Tech massacre survivor told court, "There has to be tighter gun control"

Chicago, San Francisco back Washington ban; NRA, most congressmen oppose it


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.


A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.

 The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city's ban violated the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.

District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.

In March, two women went before the justices with starkly different opinions on the handgun ban.

Shelly Parker told the court she is a single woman who has been threatened by drug dealers in her Washington neighborhood.

Don't Miss
Child rapists can't be executed, court rules
Court rules in favor of Muslim at Gitmo
High court to decide whether Navy saving whales
Gun laws in high court's sights
"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said, explaining she told police she had an alarm, bars on her windows and a dog.

"What more am I supposed to do?" Parker recalled asking authorities. "The police turned to me and said, 'Get a gun.' "  See how proponents, opponents argued »

Elilta "Lily" Habtu, however, told the high court that she supports the handgun ban, and tighter gun control in general. Habtu was in a Virginia Tech classroom in April 2007 when fellow student Seung-Hui Cho burst in and began shooting. She survived bullets to the head and arm.

"There has to be tighter gun control; we can't let another Virginia Tech to happen," she told the court. "And we're just not doing it; we're sitting around; we're doing nothing. We let the opportunity arise for more massacres."

In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.

It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.

City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

The Second Amendment says, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation.

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.

Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.

The National Rifle Association, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols -- along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.

In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance.


"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.

Washington's ban applies only to handguns. The city allows possession of rifles and shotguns, although it requires that they be kept in the home, unloaded and fitted with locks or dissembled.

[KingNeil]

Wow, the people in Washington should feel so privileged. I mean, wow, the right to follow the Constitution. Wow..

[Freeski]

What's troubling is that 4 judges voted against the U.S. Constitution.

[SuzakaDusk]

What's troubling is that 4 judges voted against the U.S. Constitution.

Yes I agree, something aint right about that...

[Capt. Obvious]

awesome. surprising

[akston]

Cool... gives Alex an hour and a half to prepare for his show, too. 

[2Revolutions]

What's troubling is that 4 judges voted against the U.S. Constitution.

It will be interesting to read their opinion why individuals do not have the right to bear arms. 

[menace]

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, 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."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

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."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

[lazarus]

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, 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."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

WA??!!!!!

[rawiron1]

OK, you can only buy a handgun in your state of residence.  There are no gun dealers in DC.  In order to get a gun shop open you have to have an FFL and meet local zoning requirements.  Can you see the games that will be played here?  It will be years before anyone will be able to buy one legally down there.

Jason

[2Revolutions]

Excerpt from article

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.

The Constitution allows US citizens to protect themselves at all times!!! What will probably happen is that DC will look to New York City as model when setting up their handgun laws.  This means that it will take the average DC citizen a couple months and plenty of cash to be able to get a permit or license to acquire a gun.  Then you will have to pay to renew your permit to keep your gun in your house every year or couple of years.  

[David Rothscum]

Wait, didn't Alex say that there'd be a fake victory for the 2nd amendment?

[doublethink]

does anyone else notice that our political leaders are more concerned with what the constitution DOESNT say, that what it DOES say?

they seem almost....compelled- to find ways around the Constitution to make their agendas.

--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."

[jflack]

Walter Burien of cafr1.com make a good point in his email saying:

"I note one concern: For a clean showing of intent for the protection of individual rights, the vote would have been 9 to 0. With a vote of 5 to 4, that is one vote away from asserting a truly totalitarian, fascist government that knowingly, willingly, and intentionally wants to "de-claw" a population for increased management, control, and inevitable ease of abuse. .

Take a close look at the individuals behind that "4" vote. It appears they do not believe in "We The People" but lean towards and wish to enact "We the Controllers."

[Route24]

Wait, didn't Alex say that there'd be a fake victory for the 2nd amendment?

He has been saying that for several months now. The rulling will appear to be in favor of an individuals right to bear arms. Don't get too excited here folks. Let's wait and see the spin on this. Look for the "howevers" to come out.

[Capt. Obvious]

OK, you can only buy a handgun in your state of residence.  There are no gun dealers in DC.  In order to get a gun shop open you have to have an FFL and meet local zoning requirements.  Can you see the games that will be played here?  It will be years before anyone will be able to buy one legally down there.

Jason

that may be true, but the ruling went the right way. And the opinion said that the 2 amendment details an individual right, not a collective right. I think we should be happy for the ruling. It is in our favor. In fact, given the particular case, I don't think we could have had a more favorable ruling. And although they still may try to make all these other restrictions and hoops to jump through, this ruling makes it harder for them to even do that.

It actually makes me wonder if a) they just let this rule in favor of the 2nd to prevent an issue to rally around (like Montana seceding) or b) they let the people have their guns (because it won't matter anyway real soon) or c) it gets people to lower their guard thinking that the PTB really aren't that bad and maybe there's nothing to worry about.

Even so, I like this ruling.

[jimwill]

I don't normally advocate violence, but ...
Those four need to have a criminal break in to their house and put a knife into a non vital portion of their anatomy. Of course the cops would respond to their call about a hundred times as fast as they would to a normal citizen's. But, at least they might get a feeling of why we need to have unlocked, loaded handguns!

[cloudsifter]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Opinion of the Court
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense. 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.
* * *
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition
of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.

I think it's where they say "...takes the absolute restriction off the table"   but that would infer that it doesn't take
anything short of that off the table.

[David Rothscum]

I don't normally advocate violence, but ...
Those four need to have a criminal break in to their house and put a knife into a non vital portion of their anatomy. Of course the cops would respond to their call about a hundred times as fast as they would to a normal citizen's. But, at least they might get a feeling of why we need to have unlocked, loaded handguns!

You do realize the feds are browsing this forum as well, do you?

[brjohnson789]

The opinion makes it official now that the government can require you to get a license for any 'right' that is protected by the government.  You want some free speech?  Ok, you'll need a $100 license, and you need to fill out 50 pages of forms for that.  You get caught practicing some free speech without a license?  BAM, you're in jail.  

Also, the court can still ban any weapon that is not 'in common use' at the time.  What's 'common use'?  I didn't see it in the opinion, so I think that could be open to interpretation by any fascist judge in the future.  

Alex was 100% right, this is a fake victory.  

[brjohnson789]

This opinion is total garbage. In order to exercise this 'right', the court ruled that the government can make you get a license. They put no limits on how much the license costs, or what sort of hoops you have to jump through to get the license. This implies the government can make you get a license to exercise any right now! Want some free speech? No problem, just fill out this form and pay a fee. Oops, your old free speech license expired, BAM, you get arrested for speaking out against the gov't on a street corner. THAT'S the reality of this decision.
Also, the opinion indicates any weapon 'not in common use' can be banned.. What's 'common use'? I didn't see it in the opinion, and i think that could be pretty arbitrary.

[Route24]

I think it's where they say "...takes the absolute restriction off the table"   but that would infer that it doesn't take
anything short of that off the table.

And that is where the spin lies. As long as it's not an absolute ban, they still left wiggle room for anything just short of the absolute. Therefore there was no real victory, just the illusion of victory for the 2nd Amendment.