SCOTUS: People have the right to own guns

I think they ruled wrong...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns_4

longer story here http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

 

Why do you think that?

 

Not certain they should have touched this one . . . but that said, would rather they ruled this way, than the other way.

Downsides on both sides, but this is better. Registration laws remain in effect.

 

I foresee a drop in militia membership...

 

At the time the Constitution was ratified the militias didn't have any army base to live at, they lived in their homes, so the amendment clearly addressed that issue.
I believe the amendment clearly applies to the militia and not to individual ownership. So states and cities can put restrictions on gun ownership.

 

States and cities can still restrict gun ownership thru registration.

And banning gun ownership will not prevent people who want firearms from possessing them.

 

It does in other countries, though, correct?

 

Well, you ain't on the Supreme Court, so what you believe doesn't really matter in this case.
I think sanity has finally prevailed on the High Court.

 

In practical terms, no. Don't know of many places where you can't somehow obtain a gun should you really, really want one.

 

So you're in favor of state and local legislative rights - except when you're against them. Interesting.

 

Damn liberal activist judges!!!

Can't wait to read the full opinions on this one.

 

Watch the 6 p.m. or the 11 p.m. news tonight and eliminate all the stories that involve unregistered handguns.

What would the news look like?

And if we cannot enforce registering them, why should we allow them?