Read what hpj3 keeps posting everyone. Read it, re-read it..... re-read it and you'll get the biggest smile on your face you've ever had!
That footnote is what put me over the top with the huge win we experienced in the Heller decision.
The bear arms discussion was also extremely important and, when you put all the holdings in this decision together, we won
BIG IMHO.
There will be incorporation arguments but the States cannot generally diminish rights established by the Bill of Rights. They can expand those rights but not diminish them.
The anti-gun crowd will have, what I believe is an impossible task, when they attempt to limit Heller to the District of Columbia only. It will be extended to the States IMHO.
Tidbit: I watched a roundtable discussion on TV yesterday. The moderator was an ACLU attorney and most of the "experts" were media reporters who follow the SCOTUS decisions, etc.
None of them mentioned footnote 27 and none of the people in the crowd (i.e., I assume more media types) challenged them on their rather weak understanding of the scrutiny aspect of the Heller decision.
For these "experts" to not mention footnote 27 bears heavily on my opinion that they are probably all, most likely, rabidly anti-gun. It appeared, by their general discussion of Heller, that they intentionally had their "heads in the sand" IMHO.
How a so-called regular reviewer and reporter of the SCOTUS decisions could miss this footnote points to a pre-conceived notion that Heller somehow gives anti-gunners some "wiggle" room with restrictions. Reasonable and intermediate restrictions are out the window if we refer to footnote 27 IMHO.
I laughed when they all felt restrictions could still be "reasonable" and incorporation might fail. They simply had their heads in the sand and were not forthright when explaining how far the Heller decision really went IMHO.