What clown wrote this article? Judges regularly ask questions that might or might not be indicative of their opinion on the topic. A lot can happen between oral argument and a written decision, and what they said at oral arguments today by no means tells us how the decision will come down.
Quote:
Quote by: HelioPrime  I'm guessing this only sets a precedent now? So the gun ban opponents still will have to take the issue to the court. |
This sets nothing now. If, when they publish a written opinion, they rule against the ban, the law is overturned. The opponents need do nothing else. At this point it is up to the Court.
Quote:
|
Sad thou. If only the need for guns could be banned universally for all non uniformed citizens. Instead we allow the rights to own them and thus create the need to own them for protection as well.
|
Huh? What kind of logic is this? Very few crimes are committed with lawfully owned guns, so how does a legal or illegal status affect that? "Allow[ing] the rights to own [guns]" has nothing to do with whether or not they are used in crimes. Take it from someone with graduate-level study in Criminology - if a criminal doesn't mind committing crime, he certainly doesn't mind if the gun he uses in that crime is illegal.
Furthermore, the right was not intended for protection against crime, it was intended primarily from protection against tyrannical government. Regardless of how effective such protection would be against
today's tyrannical government, that was clearly the original intent.