Of course, our rulers' agreement on our rights only goes so far. It can still be infringed if they have a good enough excuse, so says the thin "pro second amendment" majority of high muckety-mucks. There's no right to bear arms in this decision, only an agreed-upon privilege, revokable for anyone who gets too uppity, or upon the appointment of one more "reasonable and common-sense" oriented justice.
Given that, the one conclusion that has so far escaped all analysis that I am aware of is this:
There is now a very diverse mix of legal regimes when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. Some, like DC, have outright banned it. Others. like Chicago effectively ban it while stopping short of admitting that it's what they're doing. Then there's others, like Vermont with their shall-issue, no-questions-asked permits, and Arizona, where I commonly see people with six-shooters and 1911's on their hip at Circle-K or Home Depot.
Now, however, there has been a "decisive" ruling. Beware that word "decisive" when it comes to your rights. All it means is that the extent and methodology for violating them can be safely standardized. Have you noticed how nearly every state in the country miraculously came up with "click it or ticket" seatbelt laws, and "speeding fines doubled in work zones", and DUI checkpoints at around the same time, each legislature and governor pretending it was their own brilliant idea? I bet if you researched it, you'd find that it all happened shortly after some "decisive" court ruling on whether they'd be able to get away with it.
They have been given a "decisive" ruling on exactly how far they can go, and they will now all go directly there.