I do find it amusing that conserving a right, any right actually enumerated in the Constitution, is deemed "activism." The liberals are bleating that the Court has discarded precedent. This is a lie. What it did do was tear through the gossamer film of an illusion carefully constructed around ambiguities present only in the liberals' own minds.
In fact, the question they insist on attempting to keep open was decided. The right to bear arms is an individual right. Period. All the squinting and deconstructing and deliberate obtuseness in the world isn't going to make it ambiguous again.
How upholding a right that exists in the Constitution is the same as making one up, is "judicial activism" is laughable. There's no mention of same sex marriage in the California Constitution or abortion in the federal document. I don't see Erwin Chmerinsky ever get exercised about the breathtaking acts of judicial activism on display in those cases. But he blows his top when the U.S Supreme Court upholds the Second Amendment. If liberals think its outdated, they have a right to get it repealed. But they have no right to seek its nullification through judicial fiat.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus