<i>NO</i> "cities have laws as restrictive as those in Chicago [and one of its suburban towns] and Washington [, D.C.]", which have/had full, absolute and total bans on handgun possession by ordinary citizens (maybe with some grandfathering). Therefore the immediate and direct result will be limited (although it should be noted that 3 other Chicago suburbs including the infamous Morton Grove dropped their bans rather than fight (Chicago offered to pay the legal costs of the one remaining suburb)).<p>As it is, some lower courts have already been writing decisions assuming <i>Heller</i> would be incorporated and there are two cases in California have been on hold while waiting for this decision.<p>WRT Breyer's dissent WRT "democratic decision-making", Alito slammed him pretty hard:<p>"<i>First, we have never held that a provision of the Bill of Rights applies to the States only if there is a “popular consensus” that the right is fundamental, and we see no basis for such a rule. But in this case, as it turns out, there is evidence of such a consensus. An amicus brief submitted by 58 Members of the Senate and 251 Members of the House of Representatives urges us to hold that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental.<p>[...]<p>Third, JUSTICE BREYER is correct that incorporation of the Second Amendment right will to some extent limit the legislative freedom of the States, but this is always true when a Bill of Rights provision is incorporated. Incorporation always restricts experimentation and local variations, but that has not stopped the Court from incorporating virtually every other provision of the Bill of Rights.</i>"
I wonder how this will effect the provisions of the Brady bill such as background checks, waiting periods, bans on felons buying weapons, etc. I'm all for gun rights but these seem like common sense restrictions. If it invalidates these provisions an escaped convict could walk into a gun store and buy guns. A guy with a bunch of priors for beating his wife can walk in a buy a gun. By the strictest sense of the law it probably raises doubts on age limitations too. Why can't a 10 year old buy a gun? The second amendment doesn't set any restrictions.
NYT now also has an article about this:<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html</a>
i dunno, i thought i would share this:
<a href="http://current.com/shows/vanguard/89716716_fully-automatic-america.htm" rel="nofollow">http://current.com/shows/vanguard/89716716_fully-automatic-a...</a>
I'm not sure science has progressed to the point where we can successfully graft bear arms onto the human body, but it's nice to see the Supreme Court thinking ahead.