Since it seems to me that the Justices who've historically been most critical of using the Equal Protection Clause to extend things like the Fourth Amendment to the states are the same ones who voted to do just that with the Second Amendment. Beyond that I'm undecided on how I feel about this. I REALLY hate handguns; not only do I think rifles have better range and shotguns more stopping power, but those in the best position to know agree with me. Thus the only advantage to a handgun is concealment, and concealment is not a defensive asset to me; indeed, if you wish to DETER someone from assaulting you the best way, IMHO, is to make it CLEARLY known you have a gun, not conceal that fact just so you can give them a sudden and unpleasant surprise. And, of course, the flip side is that while someone walking into a book store with a sawed off shotgun on their hip for defense has little reason to conceal it, someone walking into a bank with a snub nosed .38 probably has GREAT desire for concealment.

On the other hand, though you have to pay attention to catch it, this seems to only apply to guns for HOME defense, and that's a different ball game, too. My rights and privileges in my home are a very different thing than my rights and privileges at Starbucks or on a street corner. I still don't LIKE handguns, because they're mankillers, and inferior to other mankillers that have other uses, but a lot of things I don't like happen in American homes where the participants have every right to engage in them. So I guess I'm OK with the ruling but uncomfortable with people exercising the right it affirms in the specific way it affirms.