I suspect Justice Thomas has had this teed up for many years and got a great deal of pleasure whacking the opposition in the face with it today:

Even before the Civil War commenced in 1861, this Court indirectly affirmed the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in public. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States. If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Id., at 417 (emphasis added). Thus, even Chief Justice Taney recognized (albeit unenthusiastically in the case of blacks) that public carry was a component of the right to keep and bear arms—a right free blacks were often denied in antebellum America. After the Civil War, of course, the exercise of this fundamental right by freed slaves was systematically thwarted. This Court has already recounted some of the Southern abuses violating blacks’ right to keep and bear arms. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 771 (noting the “systematic efforts”

Thomas goes on at length with sections such as:

The reports described how blacks used publicly carried weapons to defend themselves and their communities. For example, the Bureau reported that a teacher from a Freedmen’s school in Maryland had written to say that, because of attacks on the school, “[b]oth the mayor and sheriff have warned the colored people to go armed to school, (which they do,)” and that the “[t]he superintendent of schools came down and brought [the teacher] a revolver” for his protection. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 658 (1866); see also H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 68, 39th Cong., 2d Sess., 91 (1867) (noting how, during the New Orleans riots, blacks under attack “defended themselves . . . with such pistols as they had”).:

Via LongWay001.

In other news, Mike B. and I exchanged some text messages this afternoon:

Mike: We need to start renaming streets, “Clarence Thomas Blvd.”.
QOTD candidate by Mike’s wife.

Joe:
Hmmmmm… How about renaming NYC “Clarence Thomas City”?

Mike: Honoring the black man

From What the Supreme Court’s Gun Ruling Means For Gun Control

So the future will depend, at least in part, on what state lawmakers try to do. Lawmakers in a state like New York or California could test the limits of the Supreme Court’s ruling by designating the subway, Broadway theaters or grocery stores as “sensitive places” where heightened restrictions can be applied. The risk for them, of course, is that the next Supreme Court ruling could expand gun rights even further.

It could be that the slippery slope is leaning in the correct direction.

I won’t be satisfied until the opposition knows the slightest misstep will be like a greased tin floor at a steep angle with a Federal prison cell at the bottom.

I don’t see it as a cause for celebration. I view it as the best of the bad alternatives:

As more people get guns and carry permits, Philly sees a sharp rise in homicides ruled justified

Some see increased gun ownership and use in self-defense as bad:

“Guns are becoming too prevalent, whether they’re in the hands of licensed or unlicensed people,” Johnson said. “We’re becoming the Wild, Wild West, and soon everyone is going to have a gun, killing people ― justified or not.”

I think the majority of people realize gun people have been right all these years and are going to give our way a chance.