It's always bad form to quote yourself, but here's my own blog entry on the decision, and an excerpt from the entry -

http://tomfaranda.typepad.com/folly/2008/06/todays-2nd-amendment-supreme-court-decision.html

I was in the gym this morning when the Supreme Court decision ruling that the District of Columbia's law totally banning handgun ownership was unconstitutional. BUT, even the CNN commentators were surprised that it was only a 5-4 decision. They had expected a 7-2 or even unanimous deicision upholding the 2nd amendment "right to bear arms."

So a switch of one vote would have invalidated the common sense understanding of the second amendment! Amazing.

Here in the UK we have tighter gun laws than anyone in the US is demanding.
And the benefit from 600,000 peoople losing thier hobby and property (and having to be compensated by the taxpaper with 100 million pounds and gunsmiths, gunshops and ranges being ruined?
Shootings have soared.
The Sock

A favorite quote of mine. If you make guns illegal, then only criminals will be the ones owning them...

Don't you mean "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns"

I like that also.

Yeah, pretty much what I meant.

A blog, one that would tend to be for allowing gun ownership, with more on where things might go from here:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_06_22-2008_06_28.shtml#1214559656

As I keep reading stuff about the Heller decision, it seems the dissent cited incorrectly to some authorities. Basically, someone is claiming the dissent says that certain things in support of its argument about older cases. Apparently, the things the dissent says are not true. Perhaps, the judges that signed and wrote it, and clerks that worked on it, either did not read the cases cited or worse. See: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/06/stevens_dissent.php

I have not read the cases cited, at least not in a number of years, so I don't know if this is true or not.

Obviously, this is political, and I care about it enough to follow it. As you could probably guess, I own firearms and am against a lot of gun control. However, I am trying to stay away from arguing. Please someone tell me if I am beginning to argue.

Been reading some commentary today where its said a multitude of new restrictions in a certain areas could essentially negate the SC decision by making ownership so highly restrictive that while not technically enacting an outright ban, they'll "dissuade" you through legislation.

If such restrictions were to be enacted, they'd likely be struck down as unconstitutional as well. In the meantime, I'm still doing my happy dance.

hope this doesn't cross the line on political stuff, but I've got two words fer ya: Regional Zoning.
You can use zoning laws to ban without banning anything you want. In my home state it's illegal to operate a strip club within a certain distance of a church, and guess where new churches keep popping up(seems to me that in the case of such a law the facility that was there FIRST should get the right-of-way, but what can you do?).
I've read over and over of persons with the (overly broad) label of Sex Offender being forced out of their homes because so many laws were passed saying "you may not linger, reside, ets within X distance of Y(ZABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWZ) location" that when all was said and done there wasn't any place left where they COULD live.