Okay...

Ryan wants a "Bund Breakdown" of the decision and the opinions.

I have finished Scalia's majority opinion, but I am not happy with my understanding of everything he wrote, so I'm going to re-read it before I hit the dissenting opinions (of which there are two).

In a nutshell, Scalia says that the "traditional" interpretation of the Second Amendment as an INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT to keep and bear arms is correct. Each and every law-abiding citizen of the nation with the facilities to safely understand and use firearms has the right to keep said firearms privately for personal use and protection of both life and property, OUTSIDE of an association with a militia or police group.

The three provisions of the Heller case were: the Constitutionality of a blanket ban on handguns in DC; the Constitutionality of a ban on functional long guns within the residences of licensed gun owners; and the ban of licenses to carry firearms of any sort within your home for self-defense. The first two were found UN-Constitutional, but the Court didn't address the third... at least not that I'd seen.

Also, Scalia was very careful to point out that the Second Amendment does NOT mean that it is a protected Right to keep or bear "dangerous or unusual" weapons. I take this to mean that the Court upholds the ban on non-typical, non-traditional firearms like .50 cal "Ma Dueces" in every home that wants one, or Uzi's for personal protection at the Mall. I found no mention of a determination regarding the registration and licensing of said firearms, either... so I am assuming that DC will keep some pretty strict registration regulations in place for those that want to license handguns for personal use in the home.

To me, though... the biggest PLUS to this is the very detailed and careful explanation of the opinion that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, and not a collective one. Scalia left little to NO grey area here.