McDonald was not a clear win for us, but it was a win.
Basically, it opened the door for more lawsuits. It's a better decision than what could of come out of it, but, I wouldn't expect for States to start issuing CCWs out of vending machines.
Pertaining to McDonald, clearly the Brady folks didn't see this as a loss, and here are some thoughts from Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke:
Question: After this ruling, what can states and cities still do to restrict handguns and try to mitigate handgun violence?
Paul Helmke: Actually it's a very narrow ruling, especially when you look at both this ruling and the Heller ruling two years ago. They both deal just with the right to have a gun in your home for self defense, and they both say, and Justice Alito from the bench today talked about [how] the Second Amendment is a right to have a gun in the home for self defense. Alito today repeated the lang that Justice Scalia used two years ago and said this right is not unlimited. In his decision they talk about [it], and they repeat the language in the Heller decision that you can restrict who gets guns, you can restrict where they take the guns, you can restrict how guns are carried, you can restrict how guns are sold, you can restrict how guns are stored, you can restrict what kind of guns there are. So by repeating the Heller language today in the McDonald decision, the fact that Alito reinforced that outside of a handgun ban, cities can do a number of things to help reduce gun violence in their communities, and the challenge is going to be, with the McDonald case, there are going to be a lot of lawsuits fighting over where to draw the line on each of those things that I just mentioned.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/interview-brady-campaign-president-paul-helmke-on-why-the-gun-ruling-isnt-so-bad/58849/