No decision yet. The first one was interesting though. They struck down the "millionaire's amendment" that relaxes campain finance contribution rules for opponents of candidates who spend more than $350K on their own campaign.

And there's a whole new term in the gun v. anti-gun lexicon: "dangerous and unusual weapons."

More: "Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

"a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body."

"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

This is mind-blowing in its judicial activism. Since the court has now specified the type, size, weight (ie, characteristics) of what the Second Amendment intended, how can any other "arms" be limited per the Constitution? Whatever the vagueness of the Second Amendment, it obviously didn't address the means by which one may arm oneself, as did this court. Wonder what Saturday Night Specials were called back then, because of course that has to be written in there somewhere. Doesn't it?

Guess I should start pricing grenade launchers on e-Bay. (I'm sure they'll change their weapons policy now to conform to the free law of the land.)

I hope you're right. It's hard be optimistic with a court that was installed across unprecedented party division. At least Slick Willie solicited conservatives for SCOTUS nominees who would get bipartisan support. He reached across the aisle; W doesn't in spite of his promise to.

What was in the dissent?

I can't find the quote I was looking at earlier or heard on the radio, but it's worse than dissent. In the majority opinion:

...The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. ... Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

How many non sequiturs can they stuff in here? "amounts to"? All trigger locks, even those not yet designed, are inherently difficult and time consuming to remove? Popularity of weapons of choice (which itself is debatable) divines new wording and intent from over 200 years ago? Wouldn't marijuana be inherently constitutional because of the right to pursue happiness?

This is bullshit written by a bunch of Monica Goodling clerks.

I was musing to the wife about how this Supreme Court is very moderate if only because the poles of the range of decisions are so far apart.

To the extent that some decisions could be called left-pleasing or whatever (and I'm not sure I'd characterize any that way), those could most all be attributable to "strict constitutionalist" interpretations (or whatever the phrase is they claim to represent). I'd say any such decisions from this court have been more libertarian than liberal.

From the ruling:

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Some trigger locks are activated by a ring worn by the user.

If the ruling is faulty because of some trigger locks, how can all trigger locks violate the Second Amendment, just as declared?! After all, if some firearms "arms" make all firearms "arms" applicable under the law, don't some trigger locks make all of them constitutional?

I guess it will take a future SCOTUS not dominated by elite ideologues with their heads up their asses to fix things.