What's the next step?

All the above will be litigated!!

All above, but they all go to a single, fundamental question: what level of scrutiny should be applied to particular regulations?

Strict scrutiny is what we want; "rational basis" is a crock that would let just about anything stand.

The next case will be at least as important as this one.

Here's my hope. Heller was one prong of the pincer, McDonald the other. The pincers will presently close on the grand old Sullivan Act. That's the next big one that will go to the high court, though it may take a few years to get there. This is a law that pre-dates the NFA itself by a generation, and was the subject of a Myrna Loy & William Powell joke in "The Thin Man":

Lieutenant Guild: (inspecting pistol found in dresser) Ever heard of the Sullivan Act?

Nora Charles: Oh, that's all right, we're married.

Click to expand...

Gura is working on Carrying next. With maybe a slight detour to counter-punch whatever Chicago does.

I hope Illinois is the target of the carry lawsuit. We've got no money to defend it, anyway.

Couldn't it be argued that the right to certain things (right to carry, not to have to pay an excessive fee to own a gun, the right to ammo, etc.) be considered rights that must be protected in order to allow citizens to exercise the "fundamental" 2nd amendment right? I mean, what is the right to own a firearm if you can't also own bullets?

Also, since Heller and McDonald say the 2nd AMendment protects a "fundamental" right, wouldn't the lower courts have to apply strict scrutiny? I did a quick search and found this (although it discusses privacy rights):

Doe v. Moore, 410 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2005)
The substantive component of U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 protects fundamental rights that are so implicit in the concept of ordered liberty that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed. Fundamental rights protected by substantive due process are protected from certain state actions regardless of the procedures the state uses. When a state enacts legislation that infringes fundamental rights, courts will review the law under a strict scrutiny test and uphold it only when it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that fundamental rights include those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights as well as certain liberty and privacy interests implicit in the due process clause and the penumbra of constitutional rights. These special liberty interests include the rights to marry, to have children, to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, to marital privacy, to use contraception, to bodily integrity, and to abortion. The Court, however, is very reluctant to expand substantive due process by recognizing new fundamental rights.

Blonde

Even the 7th Circuit says this:

Russ v. Watts, 414 F.3d 783, 789 (7th Cir. 2005) (Illinois) (citing Wash. v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1997)).
The United States Supreme Court has articulated a two-part analysis for substantive due process claims: First, the Court has regularly observed that the Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed. Second, it has required in substantive-due-process cases a careful description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest. A strict scrutiny test applies; the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the government to infringe fundamental liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

Blonde

It will be interesting to see if congress also decides to step into the frey. Perhaps another law that would require all permits to be honored by all states such as a drivers licenses is today. I think this is only just getting started...

One good thing about the failing national and state economies is that State governments will stop frivously throwing away money defending these silly (losing) anti-gun policies and start generating modest revenue with CCW licenses, and also allowing more gun sales. If we learned anything in '09 it's that guns and ammo sell! How much taxpayer money did DC waste over their ban? How about Chicago?

The two worst ones in the nation have been defeated. Why bother to waste money in other locales defending the silliness if they're just throwing away money irresponsibly.

What scares me is that we got a 5-4 ruling and the dissenters were nearly 100% against the 2nd Amendment, with a shake up of SCOTUS, we could see 5-4 the other way.

Click to expand...

Just hope Scalia stays healthy! The rest of the conservatives are all pretty young by judicial standards.

Anyway, if the left does gain the majority on the court, they would be highly unlikely to try a direct attack on these precedents. They would be much, much more likely to let the matter just die off and stop taking cert on the questions entirely. For them to actually reverse Heller would be politically explosive. And they know who butters their bread.

Flyboy said:

All above, but they all go to a single, fundamental question: what level of scrutiny should be applied to particular regulations?

Strict scrutiny is what we want; "rational basis" is a crock that would let just about anything stand.

The next case will be at least as important as this one.

Click to expand...

With Alito stating several times in the Majority opinion that the ownership of firearms is a fundamental right, I don't see rational basis even being on the table.

I might be wrong, but it would be a first.