I am reading through the opinion and will post highlights for those that don't have time to read it in full. Here are some of the highlights IMO:
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
"The Amendment could be rephrased, â€œBecause a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.â€"
â€œSome 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, and the Fourth amendment applies to modern forms of search, 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.â€
"Thus, the most natural reading of "keep Arms" in the Second Amendment is to "have weapons."
â€œThere seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendmentâ€™s right of free speech was not.â€