In WSJ:

Finally. After decades of ideological debates over the meaning of every word and comma contained in the U.S. Constitution’s one-sentence Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has issued a ruling that should largely settle the matter.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms, while also affirming the constitutionality of reasonable restrictions aimed at preserving public safety and deterring criminals from acquiring and using firearms.

Affirming the Constitutionality of “reasonable restrictions”?

“The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

First of all, don’t move the goal posts, WSJ. There’s zero definition of reasonable restrictions in this opinion, and in the Constitution, making it pretty farking difficult to “affirm” what doesn’t exist in the document. That’s how this whole thing started. DCs version of “reasonable restrictions” is “no guns allowed” which has the dubious distinction of being a reasonable restriction that has raised the violent crime rate since the ban was instituted and is … you know … unconstitutional and stuff.

Secondly, the opinion on this ruling doesn’t “affirm” any restriction. It - quite simply - affirms that the 2nd is an individual right, and doesn’t get into all the regulation hubbub because defining reasonable regulation wasn’t the purpose of the lawsuit in the first place - the purpose was to compare DCs law with the Constitution. That was accomplished.