[hga]

The majority justices in both decisions have clearly states that they do not preclude regulations about commercial sales of firearms.

Note, the Brady bill waiting period was automatically retired as each state implemented their part of the nationwide "Instant Check" system.

"A guy with a bunch of priors for beating his wife can walk in a buy a gun."

Nope, the "Lautenberg Amendment" (formally the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban) makes ownership etc. illegal for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic crimes.

WRT to all the above, most people who aren't part of the gun culture have no idea how highly regulated guns are in the US today.

WRT the Second Amendment's explicit restrictions, like the other parts of the Bill of Rights it doesn't get into the necessary details, and no one reasonable thinks ones like it are "absolute". E.g. you don't have right to shout fire in a theater (unless, of course, there really is a fire). That's not set out in the First Amendment but no one has trouble with that restriction.

[CWuestefeld]

Nope, the "Lautenberg Amendment" makes ownership etc. illegal for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic crimes.

That's not exactly correct:

The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse. [1]

Logically, then I think that the latter part (about the domestic restraining order provision) ought to be vulnerable now. However, I really doubt that Court would be willing to reexamine this in the current context, since in Emerson it was judged Constitutional. [2]

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

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_...

[hga]

Given that restraining orders are handed out like candy and have been used to strip future victims of self-protection, it indeed ought to be vulnerable now. We'll see; that and the ex post facto nature of Lautenberg really need revision, since the prior regimes for both didn't take into consideration that a restraining order or misdemeanor domestic violence conviction would strip someone of a fundamental right.