A Dissenting View on Heller
From comments cited by Billy Beck:
Martin: "Allow me a least one day of optimism, however!"
Not one second, sir.
The more I think about this, the more I’m convinced that there is nothing good in it. What I see here is the Supreme Court acting as a focus-group for legislators and administrators: the Court is telling them how to tweak the program.
I started to slog through the majority opinion today, and will be working on my take hopefully for Independence Day publication.
What I have seen so far, when properly used by the OpFor, is Supreme Court authority for a complete abolition of "...weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns..." (Heller at p. 52).
More skepticism here.
So what can an average law-abiding RKBA activist do now?
Buy more AKs, ARs, FALs, Garands, and any other semi-automatic battle rifle or carbine, along with many mags and much ammo. Ditto with precision long-range rifles and associated equipment (e.g., riflescopes, bipods, and spotting scopes, along with reloading equipment and lots of components).
Keep doing so, as often as you can.
Then practice with that equipment regularly, under practical conditions, as discussed here and here.
Help others to learn those skills, whether by teaching yourself or hiring folks to do so.
For "lawful purposes", of course, such as home/farm/ranch defense, citizen-based homeland security, target competition, and personal protection.
Of course, such firearms are already "in common use at the time" (p. 55), aren't they?