[MRM]

Based on a quick read, it seemd like a pretty well written opinion, except when it came down to saying what restrictions were reasonable and the test for determining reasonableness, the court just kind of stopped. They said the DC ban was unconstitutional, but didn't really say much else. I might have missed something, though. I got tired at page 56 when the court said "We finally turn to the law at issue here."

My take on it is that guns that are normally used by ordinary people, and which are not unusual or unreasonably dangerous, are protected. Guns that are used primarily by the military can still be restricted, so machine guns are still banned and assault rifles probably have lesser protection.

People who are barred from having guns, like felons, are still barred. The government can still pass reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on carrying guns, and guns can be barred from special places like schools, government buildings and churches. But blanket bans on handguns, which are a class of weapon commonly in the possession of ordinary citizens, is unconstitutional.