The 5-4 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia has been released, with the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia. Full text of the opinion can be found here.

The decision was a small win, but a win nonetheless. An individual's right to keep and bear arms was affirmed, and outright handgun bans (addressing the case at hand) are unconstitutional. However, the win is not just in the ruling, but in the doors opened by the ruling. Many expected this decision to forever end the debate on infringements, but there was little chance of that happening. What this ruling did do is firmly establish the individual right, and leave some ambiguity as to the legality of EBRs, MGs, etc. This ruling was a bugle call signaling a charge of new suits (both directly and indirectly related) around the country; our rights are won back back one step at a time, and DC v. Heller has given us the backing to take that first step.

As the Supreme Court has exhausted their scheduled days for the release of opinions, still has some remaining, and did not release Heller today, it appears that this Wednesday or Thursday will be used for additional releases.

Written on SCOTUSblog during today's summary:
Tom Goldstein - The Court has announced that it will release opinions against at 10am Wednesday. Because seven opinions remain, it will almost certainly have one additional day. Based on past practice, that day likely will be Thursday.

Hopefully this will come to a favorable end soon.

UPDATE 6.25: Heller will come out tomorrow. From SCOTUSBlog:
Ben Winograd - The Chief Justice has announced from the courtroom that the Court will issue all of its remaining opinions tomorrow at 10 a.m. Eastern.

From The Stanly News & Press, our Attorney General has proposed another gun control law dealing with mental illness.

Some exerpts with details of the proposed law:

"It directs clerks of court to enter information from involuntary commitments into a national database designed to prevent the severely mentally ill from acquiring guns."

"In the event an individual is identified in one of those categories, a request may be made to remove the bar against firearm purchase, possession or transfer. Petitioners 18 years or older would have the opportunity to describe their recovery, offering proof they no longer suffer from the condition that resulted in involuntary commitment."

I don't see this as a threat to RKBA unless the base mental health laws used for the involuntary commitments are abused, and it doesn't seem to be too subjective and allow for arbitrary submissions for "mental health" issues. Although I would rather those who can't be trusted with firearms be locked up (if they can't be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't be out amongst the population), this law does seem to make the current law more reliable (keeping NICS updated), and not expand gun control.

Philadelphia was just getting ready to attempt to enact and enforce five new gun laws, when the NRA challenged them and won over a couple. The laws are as follows, and labeled as to their status:

- Ban Assault Weapons (Rejected by court). Definitely a win for us. This also sets some sort of precedent, and if the case heads to higher courts, as expected, PA gun owners may get some solid protection for assault weapon ownership.

- Limit Handgun purchases to one per month (Rejected by court). Another win for us. This law has no effect whatsoever on anyone but those who legally obtain guns, which are the most rare ones used in crime.

- Requirement to report lost or stolen guns within 48 hours (OK'ed by court). A loss. Not entirely sure what the purpose of this law is other than a waste of taxpayer money.

- Allow police to confiscate guns from anyone considered a danger (OK'ed by court). Big loss, mainly for the open-endedness of the law. If the police are arbitrarily allowed to decide if someone is a danger, this allows for big confiscations. What if an armed homeowner on his/her own property during a disaster is determined to be a "danger"? Hello, Katrina.

- Prohibit anyone under a "protection-from-abuse" order from possessing firearms (OK'ed by court). A loss. If someone is genuinely a threat, the individual should be locked up, not allowed to roam the streets.