Getting the McDonald decision in almost real-time...

[srothstein]

I think many people have missed an important part of this decision, including ELB who actually mentioned it. SCOTUS made it clear that the 2A protects a FUNDAMENTAL right. While this is not as good as a p&I ruling would have been, it is much better than the Heller ruling. Heller said that this was an individual right, but did not mention fundamental.

Now, I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that being declared a fundamental right makes it much harder to violate. The standard for a law abridging the 2A must now show that the law works, that the goal of the law is a strong state interest, and that there is no less intrusive way to meet this state interest than the law being examined. If I am correct, this makes it much harder for most gun control laws to be upheld since they must be shown to work.

either way, there are lots of court cases to be heard still. I am sure the states and cities will not just drop their laws without a fight.

[ELB]

I think many people have missed an important part of this decision, including ELB who actually mentioned it. SCOTUS made it clear that the 2A protects a FUNDAMENTAL right. While this is not as good as a p&I ruling would have been, it is much better than the Heller ruling. Heller said that this was an individual right, but did not mention fundamental.

Referring to the bolded part, I don't believe this is quite correct. In McDonald, the majority opinion states (with some citations omitted for clarity:

"...we must decide whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty, ...

...Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,15 and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right."

So I think the SCOTUS is saying they found in Heller that the 2A protects a "fundamental" right, even if they didn't use the word "fundamental" at that time. (They did note that a right to arms was a "fundamental" right of English subjects, at one point in history, if not today.... )

But yes I think this drives upward the level of scrutiny required to decide if a law is constitutional or not, from "rational basis" to at least "intermediate scrutiny," if not "strict scrutiny."

[GaryAdrian]

All this makes no difference once the UN Gun Ban is passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Then it must be ratified by each nation, including the United States.

As an arch enemy of gun owners, Ms. Clinton has pledged to push the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty. She will push for passage of this outrageous treaty designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

[tacticool]

All this makes no difference once the UN Gun Ban is passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations.