Dissenting justices in McDonald decision illustrate extremism of anti-gun mindset

Getting back to the WSJ article, the point it makes about the motivation of the four dissenting justices is worth exploring. Presumably, if they consider Heller a settled point of Constitutional law (and both Justice Sotomayor and nominee Elena Kagan say they do), they wouldn't object to accepting the basis of the Heller ruling, in order to gain some participation in the discussion about how much latitude state and local governments get.

The fact that they chose not to do so perhaps indicates a more ambtiious agenda on the part of the Supreme Court's anti-gun wing. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look (and a digg?) and tell a friend.