[russell_h]

It wont.

This ruling (as I understand it) mainly has the effect of incorporating[1] the 2nd amendment onto state and local governments, and doesn't deal much with with actual interpretations of the amendment itself.

In fact according to the article

Alito said government can restrict gun ownership in certain instances but did not elaborate on what those would be. That will be determined in future litigation.

Alito said the court had made clear in its 2008 decision that it was not casting doubt on such long-standing measures as keeping felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns or keeping guns out of "sensitive places" such as schools and government buildings.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Ri...

(Edited for formatting)

[awzum]

Yea but the anti-gunners say that a whole lot of new cases will inundate our courts for the next 10 years...as if that's a bad thing. California passed AB 962 which bans ordering ammunition online, and requires a thumb print and ID when purchasing ammo in person. I hope that gets fought.

[hga]

Well, states and municipalities could decide to observe the Constitution and preemptively fix their laws; 4 Chicago suburbs with total handgun bans including the notorious leader Morton Grove were defendants in the original lawsuits and 3 gave up rather than fight.

And who knows, the really bad states are also in the worst financial shape by and large (strange, that...), they're going to be under new management sooner or later (already are in NJ, the other big ones would be NY, MA, IL and CA).