When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more
than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden.14 And the Court's emphatic reliance on the claim "that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right," ante, at 19, is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right.

Through some sleight of hand ~100 years ago, corporations were granted the same rights as individuals. Which gives them huge power since they do not die and individuals aren't held to account etc etc etc.

We have the right to keep and bear arms in this country. Period.

The "but, but, only for militia" dissent is a red herring. No way the founding fathers intended for private citizens to be prohibited from owning personal firearms in any way, militia or no militia.

Thank goodness they said we can still regulate in some ways.

More to the point, and applicable in other cases and as to other Amendments, at the end of Scalia's opinion, he says:

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government--even the case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an "interest-balancing" approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people--which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and
home.
* * *
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.

Let's substitute in Scalia's language "Fourth Amendment" for "Second Amendment", and "suspicionless warrantless wiretapping" for "handgun prohibition", and then see where all you people condemning the opinion come out.  Because the principles are neutral.

The Amendment could be rephrased,"Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

From a framer's standpoint, there is nothing similar about modern handguns - 15 round or larger clips that can fire semi-automatic - to those in use at the turn of the 18th-19th century. While they are popular for home defense, they are not optimal compared to shotguns when it comes to safety of those in the home or living next door.

While I disagree with the DC law on the part that requires disabling/trigger locks of rifles and shotguns stored in the home, I think states and localities (where state law permits) should be able to ban handgun ownership.  The facts are that the overwhelming majority of homicides in the US are committed with handguns. In terms of robberies that result in deaths, again handguns are used more commonly than all other weapons combined.

The decision seems to say that because handguns are popular, they cannot be banned. Under that logic, if automatic weapons or rocket-propelled grenades were popular, they too could not be banned. I suppose we should count it fortunate that courts did not use this logic 65 years ago, or people would have the right to use Street Sweepers (Thompson .50 caliber machine guns). They certainly were popular at the time.

In San Francisco, two days ago, a motorist and his two sons were murdered by another driver trying to wedge into a crowded lane of traffic, who thought they were moving too slowly out of his way.  According to witnesses, no words were exchanged; the shooter fired without warning or provocation.

In Berkeley two weeks ago, a man was shot dead in broad daylight, on a busy street near the University, by a youth whom he was haranguing.  You could say there was a provocation, but hardly a commensurate response.

It is truly a thing of beauty, simply tearing to shreds Scalia's textual argument.

It reviews the history of the drafting of the Second Amendment, and its overall context. What's perfectly clear is that the Framers were aware of alternative formulations that explicitly extended the right to keep and bear arms to civilians for such purposes as self-defense and hunting, but that they chose instead a formulation that could be interpreted in a strictly military fashion.

From a logical point of view, as a reading of the intention of the Framers, as well as of its natural meaning, it's a devastating critique.

before some twit goes off, arms and ammunition are not mutually inclusive terms, and never have been, so even scalia might have some difficulty torturing that right into the 2A.

i have to wonder how this decision will impact gun control laws all over the country? of course, the 2A doesn't ennumerate the types of arms, so i can see arguments being made that anyone should be able to own any weapon at all, if they can afford it.

Apparently, now that he's unopposed, Obama feels no constraint, and his right/center instincts can run roughshod.