imported post
Well, I would not call it a hollow victory...
From the majority opinion:
JUSTICE BREYER chides us for leaving so many applications
of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for
not providing extensive historical justification for those
regulations of the right that we describe as permissible.
See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents this
Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment,
one should not expect it to clarify the entire field,
any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145
(1879), our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left
that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be
time enough to expound upon the historical justifications
for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those
exceptions come before us.
All through the opinion, the Court stated that this case was of very limited scope, and that the Court was not ruling on many other aspects of gun rights. This case was about a very specific issue, namely the right to own a handgun to be used for home defense, and the court ruled clearly that application is definitely within the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT guaranteed by the Constitution.
That is the largest victory of this case... The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, like the other nine that from the "Bill of Rights", guarantees a INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to "keep and bear arms."
The Court did state that the Second Amendment does have limitations, just as the First Amendment does not allow one to sell state secrets.
But the Majority Opinion most definitely has subtle clues that the court will not allow the right to bear arms to be infringed, unless a strong, substantiated, and compelling reason exists.
Will there continue to be disagreements and setbacks? Yes.
Does this Majority seem to have the idea; that individual liberty is the core to a strong Union? I sure hope so.