Some like the decision as they prefer laws that aggressively seek to restrict the trade of unlicensed firearms. Some like an aggressive effort to confiscate guns from unlicensed owners. Some like aggressive background checks that include juvenile records. These measures could be construed as “racist”. But where are those owners/guns? Where are the gun crimes occurring?
Others object to the decision as they don’t trust citizens generally to enter public spaces with fire arms. Risks associated with poor judgement, intemperance and poor skills are too great in their judgment. They feel we should generally keep defensive weapons in the home where property rights and personal protection rights are almost absolute.
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long
The actual decision is much ado about nothing. It not only doesn’t impact about 43 states, it also just impacts people trying to obtain permits through thorough legal means. Concealed handgun permit owners are very rarely criminals.
The hyperbole around it is ridiculous.
Now, the framework updates for considering gun cases (the change to the “two part test”) might be very substantial, and that likely deserves some scrutiny.
overall the court played its role: it upheld an enumerated right even if ever so slightly (imagine if you had to be fingerprinted to post about the government on Twitter or to attend a religious service).
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work)