Although fiddletown and I have disagreed rather vociferiously in the past - I agree almost completely with his post #71 on this thread it is very logical and well written.
Some here seem disappointed that the court's opinion didn't in dicta at least - start naming all sorts of gun laws as unconstitutional or state that as opposed to Heller - in McDonald on incorporation - that no gun control is constitutional.
The court answered - as this particular court always does - just the specific question in the case before it - no more and no less.
Drink the Brady Koolaid if you wish - this was a huge win and far from what some here postulate - it is just the beginning of a lot of positive changes.
If one reads the text of Heller and McDonald - the specific limitations by which the court defines reasonable or constitutional gun control are very limited themselves.
Some here seem disappointed that the court's opinion didn't in dicta at least - start naming all sorts of gun laws as unconstitutional or state that as opposed to Heller - in McDonald on incorporation - that no gun control is constitutional.
The court answered - as this particular court always does - just the specific question in the case before it - no more and no less.
Drink the Brady Koolaid if you wish - this was a huge win and far from what some here postulate - it is just the beginning of a lot of positive changes.
If one reads the text of Heller and McDonald - the specific limitations by which the court defines reasonable or constitutional gun control are very limited themselves.