It's interesting to think of the excuses made against individual firearms ownership in terms of other claims made about the Bill of Rights as regards "states rights." I can totally get behind the notion that the First Amendment only protects citizens from Federal intrusion on speech, if it means we can require as a matter of state law, all registered democrats to take a test and get a psychological examination before being issued a license to speak.

I find it worthy of a firing squad when lawyers attempt to "interpert what our forefathers really meant". They meant what they F--ing said. They did not draft the constitution as a document to be interperted with magical hidden meanings 200 years down the road. These are the rules of our country! If you don't agree with them there are many more countries on earth to choose as your address. Mike Deihl you are correct! Democrats do need psycological examinations.

Guys they aren't gonna go away quietly and neither should we. We need to continue exercising our rights, voices and communication between us and our state legislators

Federal law should always supercede state and local law, that is one of the reasons we fought the Civil War. I would like to see some truth injected into all the fearful and specious arguments.
2 things keep Americans free in particular, a vast and empowered middle class and private ownership of firearms.
I would like to see our right to defend ourselves and our property given more recognition, but by and by large there seems to be this understanding that one doesn't really have the right to self defense (heck the only times I ever been in trouble was for defending myself too vigorously, the cops always take everyone involved regardless). But the police cannot possibly defend everyone and the mere fact of law provides no deterrent to desperate men.
I still maintain the best form of security is a tight knit neighborhood (with guns in the right hands). I also think the Roberts Court wants to facilitate gun friendly court rulings before Scalia dies and is replaced by Obama. That was the obvious reason why Bush put Roberts in anyway, they want one of theirs in charge of the court as long as possible and Roberts is comparatively young. While I want my 2nd amendment rights preserved, I don't like the fact that Roberts is a corporate lawyer, rather than a trial lawyer. As such he is lead man for the very class that oppresses the American middle class the most. He continually rules for corporate entities over human beings contributing to this present abomination where somehow corporations (which exist only to create profits for shareholders and CEO's) have more rights than individual people and families. It isn't capitalism anymore anyway, it is this corporatist farce where managers see the crash coming and try to exploit the mess before the whole house falls in.

Legally speaking the Ruling could go one of two ways. The majority (assuming a majority exists) could rule that the so called "local option" is similar to the local option to ban or allow strip clubs (an extension of the right to free expression as a form of free speech) or similar to dry counties which ban the sale, though not the possession, of firearms. The other option is incorporation through the 14th amendment, the right to freedom of worship or freedom of speech cannot be overruled by a state law or local statute. And in contrast to strip clubs or bans of the SALE of alcohol, either is allowed in a private residence. Furthermore, the aforementioned (and likewise assumed comparison) is illegitimate, the judiciary (SC justices) are always supposed to err on the side of what is clearest or most established as law; i.e. the Specifically stated right to bear arms. Hopefully the newly appointed Sotomayor will uphold our right and traditional way of life. Unfortunently, however she stated in her 2004 decision in US v. Sanchez Villar ""the right to possess a gun is CLEARLY (emphasis added) not a fundamental right." How she can justify that it is not a fundamental right...it is the second amendment. Good thing the founders did not add onto the first amendment by stating free speech was for the purpose of achieving liberty (among other obvious things, as the right to bear arms is for much more than ONLY the militia). Liberals would try to take that right away too. They of all people should know that the exclusion of specific purpose of a right, aka right to privacy, does not mean the right (or purposes/reasons FOR that right) does not exist. Likewise the explicitly stated RIGHT to bear arms can be for more than ONLY the maintainence of a militia- meaning that the right includes purposes other than only the militia. I strongly doubt the forefathers would have ever accepted such a justice's appointment, much less nomination. Just keep praying for this country ya'll.

Sorry for the novel, but will probably be worth your time to read. Thanks!

I wasnt around when the constitution was written. But, why would you write the constitution and expect it NOT to be applied to the states. I wouldnt travel from england by boat to america, fight for my freedom, and then write a document that ONLY applied to the federal government. Any reasonable person would write the constitution to govern where they intended to live, and not govern only the federal government.

Actually, Hitler was not taking rights away from Americans. I believe the last person to seriously restrict our personal freedoms was George W. Bush.