On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:06:24 -0700, Don Homuth wrote:

Gura put up a case on a very narrow point, and the Court ruled on that
point. The decision didn't rule on whether bans on semi-autos were
allowable, if revolvers were allowed, or if licensing requirements were
allowable, or many other issues, because those weren't issues before the
court.

But note Scalia's language on licensing:

Before this Court petitioners have stated that “if the
handgun ban is struck down and respondent registers a
handgun, he could obtain a license, assuming he is not
otherwise disqualified,” by which they apparently mean if
he is not a felon and is not insane. Brief for Petitioners
58. Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does
not “have a problem with . . . licensing” and that the District’s
law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an
arbitrary and capricious manner.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75.
We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license
will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address
the licensing requirement.

Licensing laws may be allowable, if they are “not enforced in an
arbitrary and capricious manner.”

D.C. may keep it's licensing requirement if it chooses to. But what
standard must they use in issuance?

Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

They must issue to Heller, and to anyone else who applies is is not
legally disqualified from possessing a gun.

Say goodbye to may-issue permit laws.

Chicago's ban on ownership is toast. New York City's practice of issuing
permits only to celebrities and politicians, likewise.

There's nothing in this opinion that forbids requiring permits, licenses,
or registration, but the laws will have to be written and enforced so as
to specify objective standards, denying applicants only because of
individual disqualification.

--
Is it just or reasonable, that most voices against the main end of
government should enslave the less number that would be free? More just
it is, doubtless, if it come to force, that a less number compel a
greater to retain, which can be no wrong to them, their liberty, than
that a greater number, for the pleasure of their baseness, compel a less
most injuriously to be their fellow slaves. They who seek nothing but
their own just liberty, have always the right to win it, whenever they
have the power, be the voices never so numerous that oppose it.
- John Milton