Remember how some folks used to make fun of Hugh Hewitt for finding every development in the Republican primary a good sign for Mitt Romney?

I thought of that when I read this instant reaction to the DC vs. Heller case on Andrew Sullivan’s blog. If Sullivan didn’t agree, he at the very least thought it was worthy of consideration.

One of the reasons [the GOP] will get hammered is Heller. It’s hard to get the RKBA [Right to Keep and Bear Arms] crowd all harem-scarem about Obama’s rather obvious distaste for Second Amendment rights when the SCOTUS has taken the issue off the table. It’s done, and this will be seen in future as a nail in McCain’s coffin. Obama may disagree, but he will do so in a centrist manner that doesn’t endanger his Blue Dog allies and his prospects in Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa.
Mark this down: this decision killed John McCain.

I remind you of that in order to put this statement by Robert Levy, the litigator of that case, in perspective:

Heller is merely the opening salvo in a series of litigations that will ultimately resolve what weapons and persons can be regulated and what restrictions are permissible. Near term, the Court will also have to decide whether Second Amendment rights can be enforced against state and local governments. Despite those remaining hurdles, it’s fair to say that the court’s blockbuster decision makes the prospects for reviving the original meaning of the Second Amendment substantially brighter. And given the unfolding presidential contest, it’s also fair to say that the court’s razor-thin majority conveys a crucial message: Judicial nominations matter.

Rather obviously, DC vs. Heller didn’t “take the issue off the table.” In fact, gun owners will probably be supremely motivated and impassioned — let’s do away with the condescending sneer of “harem-scarem” — because four Supreme Court justices ruled that a complete ban on gun ownership is constitutional, and Obama’s favorites are three of them.