I wanted some time to see what the interpretations of the decision were going to play out like before I commented on it.
I'm not sure it is a bad decision nor do I think it is the end-all/be-all to gun control decisions. It seems that all it did two things:
1) Tossed out the entire 'militia' argument in the constitution all together and established an individual right to bear arms
2) Said total gun bans are unconstitutional at the FEDERAL level and reaffirmed the right to own a gun in the house or for hunting.
It did nothing to talk to how states want to enact gun control laws as long as it isn't a blanket restriction. From comments I've listened to and read over the past week since the decision came down it appears only a handful of gun bans are going to be affected. DC is already talking about pushing a new one through that enacts licensing and registration of guns and limiting ownership to the home for protection.
Another thing the law ruling doesn't do is talk to conceal and carry laws and the like.
So really I think, except for the 'militia' argument, this ruling doesn't do much of anything to end the debate on gun control. What it does do, politically, is it takes the gun control wedge issue off the table to beat Obama up with.
All in all I'm ok with it.