Mike the Usurper wrote:
Not only is it a narrow margin, it is such a limited decision it may be a repeat of Bush v. Gore in that it has no application to other questions. All that was established here is that DC's complete ban of handguns, and requirement that rifles/shotguns be either unassembled or trigger locked was excessive. If DC wants to turn around tomorrow and say, "$5000 registration fee, waiver for police officers or for individuals granted a waiver by the police," that would be completely acceptable under the ruling.

I'm not sure. Granted, I haven't had time to read it, but an individual rights interpretation might involve a least restrictive means test, which a $5000 registration fee would not meet. Having said that, one of the reasons I'm comfortable with this decision is that reasonable restrictions are still left on the table.

There is also question about whether the same decision applies to a state law which inserts a militia clause, or even if it applies to other municipal laws such as Chicago or San Francisco, which operate under state code rather than direct federal law.

I don't think either will fly, because I think the amendment is incorporated. The amendment was obviously not written with incorporation in mind (which is, I think, why the tension exists between the concept of a militia and the individual right -- the framers assumed states would do the regulating). Its possible that it shouldn't be incorporated as a policy matter, but in general I think things were incorporated.

RE: Supreme Court upholds 2nd Amendment [PDF]