Winkler's thesis was the subject of a prior thread here. On examination it turns out that the gun 'bans" being upheld post Heller involve possession by felons and other legally disabled individuals, in other words individuals who no one reading and agreeing with the Heller decision thought would gain any rights under Heller.
Winkler's thesis is a strawman, and his assessments of Heller's and Scalia's weaknesses shed more light on his own constitutional instincts than the quality of Heller or Scalia's judicial philosophy.
But to the question "Has Heller changed anything?", the proper answer might be "not much yet".
Civil rights litigation continued for decades after Rosa Parks prevailed in court. We don't expect great and dramatic change through our legal system. A principled understanding of the amendment has been provided and will be part of the developing landscape of laws over time unless a later court decides it shouldn't be.
Last edited by zukiphile; March 17, 2009 at 01:14 PM.