Still reading the decision, but something starting on page 25 is critical:
Burden of proof.
“The constitutional imperative is on the government to not infringe. The correct starting orientation is that no arm may be prohibited.”
(page 26)
<edit>
The whole section on “Militia Use” starting on page 80 is also critical.
This opinion cuts to the core issues.
It is excellently written and may serve as a foundation for future 2nd amendment cases.
“In the end, the Bill of Rights is not a list of suggestions or guidelines for social balancing. The Bill of Rights prevents the tyranny of the majority from taking away the rights of a minority. When a state nibbles on Constitutional rights, who protects the minorities? The federal courts. The Second Amendment protects any law-abiding citizen’s right to choose to be armed to defend himself, his family, and his home. At the same time, the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms to use should the militia be needed to fight against invaders, terrorists, and tyrants. The Second Amendment is about America’s freedom: the freedom to protect oneself, family, home, and homeland. California’s assault weapon ban disrespects that freedom.”
(pages 91-92)
In the conclusion:
“There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of law-abiding responsible citizens are better.”
(page 92)
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1622850515