A few thoughts and answering a question…

Sorry, should have been more clear in my words. The Court gave instructions to the lower courts. If a statute isn’t something that the colonists would have accepted in 1788, then it is not valid today.

“Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.”… “Heller further confirmed that the right to “bear arms” refers to the right to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” This definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table.”” This clearly states that open carry is legal now in all states. On the person is open carry.

“Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.”

This takes away judges discretion on approving a gun law. It removes the “government interest test,” from consideration. If a law would not have stood in 1788, then it would not stand today. I cannot imagine restrictions that we employ today to have passed scrutiny then. “Moreover, Heller and McDonald expressly rejected the application of any “judge-empowering ‘interest-balancing inquiry’ that ‘asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.’… (the Second Amendment does not permit—let alone require—“judges to assess the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions” under means-end scrutiny). We declined to engage in means-end scrutiny because “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634. We then concluded: “A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.” Ibid.”

The test the judges may use is only in if the law was acceptable by the people who ratified the 2nd, and/or can relate back to a law that was in place before and after the 2nd was ratified.

At that time there were no background checks. No one gun a month limits, no open carry limits, no red flag laws, no “hearing after the fact,” laws, no confiscation laws, no magazine limit laws, no mag capacity laws, no….

Laws are going to start falling in days, and laws will be removed one after another for years. We have our right back.  Now, it’s time we started protecting it.