I love this smackdown by the majority regarding the minority's put down of the NRA:
LMAO on this:
"159 As to our dissenting colleagues, we ignore many of their comments suggesting that any law, constitutional provision, or decision announcing or upholding the rights to keep and bear arms -- including Section 20, Doe, and Heller -- must be discounted as the product of a politically motivated, NRA-driven agenda. But we do pause to observe that the dissent’s approach -- were it to have been the law -- would have troubling implications beyond this case. If, as they posit, agency regulations (such as those eviscerating fundamental Section 20 rights) are immune from any constitutional scrutiny, what principles could the Court then invoke if an agency were to ban the press from open meetings, or limit political or other speech in such areas?"