Supreme Court's McDonald v. Chicago decision leaves much to be worked out

The question now becomes one of how to square this recognition of the "fundamental" nature of the right to keep and bear arms, with applying anything less than strict scrutiny to any laws regulating guns. Personally, I like the idea of a "stricter than strict scrutiny" ("draconian scrutiny," perhaps?). It's hard to imagine arguing that laws that might violate a fundamental right should receive only "intermediate" scrutiny. [More]

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