“What wasn’t immediately clear to me from the decision is what happens to “no gun zones” on state-owned schools or facilities. It might be argued that certain types of land use or population densities, such as airports, are inherently places where guns cannot be allowed. Whether the argument can be made for an entire city like Chicago is something that lawyers will have to debate.”

I think they would have a very difficult time making that argument. They may be able to claim that state-owned facilities or certain types of land use are inherently “no gun zones,” but to say that an entire metropolitan region could be so classified when major portions of it are privately owned and occupied by free citizens who have an acknowledged, Constitutionally-protected right to own and carry a gun seems to me to be a completely untenable position. All that would be necessary to shoot it down (so to speak) would be to show a citizen who is a resident of that city and who has no interest or substantial ability to move elsewhere and who desires a gun.