Adam Liptak at New York Times indicates that potential lawsuits will follow challenging gun laws in other cities but notes the caveat that the Court decided on a law in the District of Columbia making the decision applicable to federal law only and not necessarily state and local law.

What is interesting to me about the decision is not the gun aspect of this law. Somewhat of a pragmatic realist and a natural cynic, I see the decision (which I commend) as fraught with the possibility of other problems.

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

The decision, in essence says that no public policy may supersede that which is established in Constitutional law, a thesis that is somewhat vague. And therein lies our problem. By setting this precedent, we have to ask, “Hasn’t this always been the case? Haven’t we relied on the courts to tell us if a law passed by the legislature and signed by the executive branch was Constitutional or not? What is the Court saying here?”

My feeling is that this decision sets up extra-Constitutional authority to the Judiciary to also have to sign a bill into law. Congress passes. Thee Court rubber-stamps. The President signs.

This is not what our forefathers had in mind when they established a system of checks and balances.

Some might think I’m smoking crack. I just generally believe that where there is smoke, there is fire.