Footnote: gun control being Constitutional means little if the laws can't get passed
As a sort of footnote to that, legal experts quoted by Reuters said that this court victory will have more of a symbolic than a practical effect because in the words of one, "All this says is that if you pass such a law, it will be constitutional." The point being, of course, that you have to get them passed and that is the problem.
Which is not entirely accurate because there is a practical effect: New York and Connecticut still have their gun control laws in place. Still, the intended point is valid: It doesn't matter how Constitutional gun control laws are if you can't get them passed.
Which is frustrating because the public has persistently favored stronger gun control laws.
In Gallup polls over the last 16 years, that is, 2000-1015 inclusive, when people are given the choice of three options - make gun laws stronger, make them weaker, or leave them as they are - support for weaker laws has never exceeded 13% and except for three years when the public was evenly split on stronger versus same-as-now, those supporting stronger laws have always been on top. In fact, in 11 of those 16 years, support for stronger laws was a clear majority - as it is now.
And still nothing happens.
Sources cited in links: