I've finished reading the majority opinion and Justice Stevens' dissent.
Scalia's opinion is quite an interesting history lesson (if you haven't already read the history on the subject exhaustively). It is, quite plainly, an adequate discussion of both the structure of the Second Amendment and also the history surrounding it.
What it doesn't do (and here I agree with Justice Breyer, albeit for different reasons) is set out a Constitutional standard by which firearms restrictions may be judged. It affirms that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms unconnected with military service; but it does not yet (as it should) afford that right the same Constitutional protections as other specifically enumerated rights.
Stevens' dissent, if you focus solely upon his attempts at textualism, reads like a pretty compelling argument to overturn Roe v. Wade, which I thought was particularly ironic.
Maybe more to come, maybe not.
“Could sports-betting ruling invalidate US death penalty law?” - “Could sports-betting ruling invalidate US death penalty law?” Wilson Ring of The Associated Press has this report.
11 hours ago