I've read the opinion and have been following the discussions here about it. One thing I have not really seen anything on is the ideal of "shall issue" now that Heller has been decided. In reading the majority opinion, it would seem to me that there is a very defensible case for "shall issue" in states where there is now only "may issue". Scalia makes it very pointed that Heller MUST be issued a permit if he is not disqualified for any "normal" reason, IE. felon, Domestic, etc.
If I read the decision properly, this is exactly what is stated. Now, if Heller must be issued a permit, would that not be a limitation that could be challenged in a may issue state? Or is the fact that the decision pertaining to "in the home" pursuent to Heller accepting such a permit "for defense of the home" only, make that an issue that could not be challenged in a state such as MA, where the local CLEO has say over who gets a permit for a firearm and who doesn't?
I'm no scholar nor have I ever played one on tv, and I did NOT stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but I am certainly interested in what some of my fellow DC.com erudites have to say about this.