Personally, I would change the motto on the Supreme Court building to: AMERICAN JUSTICE IS THE BEST MONEY CAN BUY!
I also don't agree with the Inquirer's editorial about the possible outcome, although it will be a disaster whatever the result.
We are seeing a proliferation of people pushing the envelope on firearms in public as a result of Heller's new found right. I am not sure what the arms carriers are attempting to prove. They claim that they want to make firearms an everyday item, but I find that they are totally counterproductive to their stated aim. Unfortunately, rather than express disapproval, people who believe in "gun rights" support this idiocy.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised at whatever nonsense the court promulgates in this case. It is building absurdity upon absurdity by trashing all canons of Constitutional law. We may even see Scalia contradicting himself:
"[T]he Second Amendment [i]s a guarantee that the federal government will not interfere with the individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense. … Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that. … [T]here is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant. Of course, properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states."Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law 136-137 n.13 (Amy Gutmann ed., Princeton U. Press 1997).
Although, we may learn that the Second Amendment applies to the States despite Patrick Henry's warning about "When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds".
It will be even funnier if he allows the State laws as reasonable regulation!
Perhaps, Scalia should have listened to the Precedent of US v Miller rather than judicially amending the Constitution. Better yet, he should listen to himself.
He might realise that he is making a real idiot of himself.