The heart of Heller

At Slate‘s Convictions blog, Phillip Carter lays out the crux of the court’s ruling in Heller:

So, if I understand this right, Scalia’s got no beef with “felon in possession” statutes like those at the heart of the Justice Department’s Project Safe Neighborhoods strategy. And he’s got no beef with states banning assault rifles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and other instruments of violence that are firearms but may be just a tad bit dangerous for you or me to keep and bear. And I think Scalia’s also cool with background checks, registration, and waiting periods If I’m adding up the scorecard right, that means most federal, state, and local gun control in America survives Heller.

From the commentary I’ve seen thus far, and the brief skimming of the opinion that I’ve done, this seems pretty much right. Scalia’s majority opinion did two things: it established the right to bear arms as an individual right, but it also established that right as one that can be regulated. Taking a look at the restrictive language, I’m mildly surprised that the decision was 5-4 instead of 6-3 or 7-2. Even liberals in recent years have acknowledged that the Second Amendment–poor, obfuscating grammar and all–was designed to be an individual right and not a collective right. Considering America’s history and the founders’ intent, it’s unclear (to my non-lawyerly eye, at least) how any other decision could be reached.

So there you go. My thoughts on the case, 10 hours or so after they were promised. Give me a break, I’m pretty busy at my day job this week.