I have mixed emotions about the case. It's fantastic on the surface for the 2nd amendment, I say surface because I've come to expect the devil in the details. LOL! But from a State's Rights standpoint, I'm a bit iffy. DC is a federal enclave and it's interesting the case Marbury verses Madison which is the caselaw for SCOTUS to be the final say in all things law was also an issue concerning the federal enclave of DC. There is great debate among theorist over this issue of State's rights. I believe since the constitution at the time written had no standing army per say, the militia is not what a lot of people think it is in out modern thinking.
The constituiton prescibed method in which war is declared by Congress, which in turn grants the President the power to call forth from the state governor's to send "THEIR MILITIA's". IMO the 2nd amendment was more about State's rights in that Congress of the federal gov't could not infringe upon the soverign position of the State's and therefore the people themselves. As long as the State's were able to meet their obligations of the Constitution when called upon in time of war, it was up to them or rather the people as to how they would govern their local community. If the community standard was pro-gun then so be it but if the community stand was anti-gun, so be it then. How do you think some of the "no guns in town" of the old west stood the test of law? State's rights and the right of the people to not be infringed! The 2nd amendment IMO works both ways.
Being Heller was a case concerning the Federal Enclave of DC or more directly,
areas under federal jurisdiction and I realized that bolded comment probably just went over everyone's head (mine too until I read the 1957' and 1958' Federal report on Federal jurisdiction) just how reaching is the Heller case ultimately. Some federalist will argue 14th amendment which is a valid point but I'm old school and a Soverign State's right kind a guy and hell no I don't believe in slavery either. One massive shortoming of the organic constitution IMHO. ALL MEN AND WOMEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!!!!!!! So don't raise they tripe with me!
Heller may be a good case/bad case kinda deal like SCOTUS itself. First the Habeus case and then the La, chld rape case and the court was the spawn of hell. Now the Heller case and they sit at the right hand of God!
Jeckyl and Hyde!
If you are interested in having your eyes opened a bit, then the 1957' Pt.1 and 1958' Pt. 2 report comissioned by President Eisenhower on Federal Jurisdiction within the States is most revealing. I got an orignal gov't copy back in the early 80's but some wonderful soul has reproduced it on the net. Very interesting reading although very dry as well.
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/fj0-0000.htm
Heller is also a godsend for McCain. He can make a good case with Heller about the need for conservatives to vote for him just on this one point alone as it concerns the future of SCOTUS. You could make a case that had Gore or Kerry been elected, the outcome of Heller might be different.
We no longer have a court guided completely by principle of law but rather the public policy of those who nominate and vote them into the court.
We are no longer a republic (a nation of law and principle) but a real democracy (a nation of whims and desire) which is historically that step over the cliff towards being that infamous footnote in history that someone else's kids will study about as something not to do on a societal scale!
JMO.