Scrapin' the bottom of the barrel, he is

...that would be Josh Sugarmann, at the Huffington Post:

Fifteen months after receiving the "Sport Shooting Ambassador Award" from the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA), Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has done his part to make sure that, at least in the U.S., the future for his gun industry friends and their lobbying pals is a little bit brighter.

So, according to Mr. Sugarmann, Scalia apparently didn't vote the way he did because of his opinions on the Founding Fathers' intent when they penned the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No, Mr. Sugarmann thinks, I guess, that Scalia voted the way he did as a form of payback to his "gun industry friends and their lobbying pals." Haha, what a dick. Not that I would expect any higher of a level of discourse from a contemptible slug like Sugarmann, but one would think he'd try harder than what basically amounts to an ad-hominem attack on Scalia. I don't know why he bitches and moans so...after all, as one of the very few FFL holders in Washington, Sugarmann's in a position to make a shitload of money here. And if it's true what some are saying about the future of the gun control movement -- that a great portion of the people behind it want to see guns banned outright, and that the ruling in Heller is going to see them so dispirited that they're just going to stop donating money to gun-ban organizations -- he's gonna need that income.
And the head of the Brady Bunch, Paul Helmke, shows himself to be as clueless as ever:

You can deal with middle-ground restrictions. ... We can enact common-sense measures to make it safe," he said, including banning assault weapons and closing a loophole that allows easier purchasing of weapons at gun shows.

No, you dumb shit, you CAN'T ban "assault weapons." The Supreme Court fucking SAID as much in the decision:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Scalia also alluded to the fact that the court decided in U.S. v. Miller that arms "used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes," were indeed protected by the Second Amendment. Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but my layman's reading of those passages leads me to conclude that not only is individual ownership of semi-automatic rifles such as the AK-47, AR-15 and M1A -- you know, the rifles erroneously referred to as "assault weapons" -- protected by the Second Amendment, but individual ownership of their select-fire counterparts is ALSO protected. Which would, you know, preclude not only the ban on civilian sales of new select-fire weaponry manufactured after May 19, 1986, but also bans such as the so-called "assault weapons" ban passed by the Democratic Congress in 1994.
Speaking of the Democrats, or at least their constituency, they must think we as gun owners are pretty stupid, as evidenced by remarks such as these:

A big shout out to the Fascist Five on the big court. You just handed the election to Obama. A reverse decision on this case, that is, a true reading of the constitution which clearly defines the right to bear arms as a collective one in the context of now defunct state militias, whould have only inflamed all the gun nuts. It would have increased donations to the NRA backed 527groups and opened a deluge of pissed-off conservatives who would have held their noses and voted for McShame. It would quickly have eclipsed most other campaign issues.

At least I am hoping that gun owners are more aware than to allow this to happen. Anyone who's studied history knows full well that court decisions can be reversed by future courts, sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse. And how are those reversals facilitated? Judicial appointments, a few of which I am sure the next president is going to get to make, whoever he might be. And then, of course, there's the martial law boogeyman, suspension of the parts or all of the Constitution in the case of, say, a terrorist attack or something of that nature. And personally, I wouldn't put it past either McCain or Obama to do such a thing. In any event, I don't think the political landscape has really changed too much vis-a-vis the presidential election, even if a lot of the measures Obama wanted to pass have as much as been declared a violation of the Second Amendment...and if it has, I think momentum would have swung to McCain, although not as much as he and his camp might like to think because of his being all-too-willing to compromise with the leftists. (As always, Tamara's take is spot-on...) We'll see how it goes, though...