It appeared clear that a majority of the court would rule that the US constitution protects the right of individual Americans to “keep and bear arms” – but that federal, state and local governments will retain some powers to regulate firearms.

At issue in the case is the constitution’s second amendment, which includes ambiguous language about gun rights. It says “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.A majority of the nine justices, including the crucial “swing” justice Anthony Kennedy, who often holds the balance of power on the court, appeared to believe the amendment guaranteed an individual right to weapons.

Justice Kennedy repeatedly insisted that the amendment must have been intended to allow citizens to protect their frontier homes and families against dangers such as attacking Indians or bears, and should provide a similar right to protect the modern home.

I think Kennedy is wrong. The amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves from the government.

I think Kennedy is wrong.

Then, unfortunately, I'm not the only one who's had those fears! Flash back to AG Janet Reno era.

This bugged me all day. I perceived a long, drawn out battle of words and I could foresee the private citizens being stripped of this protection. There were some who predicted that this would go on for months. Thank goodness it was settled quickly. Many options are being restricted by state/local laws. But at least, the SC isn't saying that this only applies to a militia which was originally one of the arguments.

Thank goodness it was settled quickly.

I was stunned at the speed the Justices ruled on the
case. They made the right ruling.

For once, n2, I must agree with you.