Never heard of DC vs. Heller? You will. Here's a wiki on it: scotuswiki

tl;dr: SCOTUS decides whether the city of Washington DC can ban handguns from its city, which will be the first important ruling on the 2nd Amendment since 1939. A few politicians in Montana have claimed if they rule against the 2nd Amendment being an individual right, they will secede as the original contract between the state and feds had that as a clause. I doubt they have the balls to do that, although it will be lulz if they do.

The Sauce:
News Article: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/supreme_court...l?hpid=news-col-blog
Wiki on Case: http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller
Majority Opinion: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

So if you take the time to read the majority opinion you'll understand why I'm so damn happy about his case. It seems that the supreme court finally read the consitution of the United States. I'm hoping that NRA or JPFO will use this case as a precident to intiate review of the 39' and 68' fire arms laws which if you actually review them are un-constituitional.

geez iams... way to be productive. so now i know why we're a sucky country...

I think that these brutish and primitive aids to killing should only be held by officers. When our forefathers made the bill of rights we were having war in our territory so people actually need them in order to protect themselves. We really are behind compared to other powerful countries.

I soley blame education and republicans and religion for the fact that we have not been modernized like other powers...

BluedemoNcrat ... all I can say is you are COMPLETELY wrong. DC banned more than handguns. It clearly states that ALL weapons MUST be broken down or rendered inoperative.

Before you flap your lips, you may want to ensure you even know what you are talking about.
Was that "rash" enough for you?

The B.O.R. doesn't care how YOU have always felt. Neither does the SCOTUS, thank God!

I don't think any state constitutionally could or practically would completely ban all guns (the DC ban was just on handguns). Scalia's majority opinion was quite vague and while he affirmed the individual's right to bear arms, he did not determine whether or not that right extended into public places or to what kind of weapons it applied. It will be up to the lower courts to create and determine the constitutionality of these restrictions.

Personally I found this decision to be rash. I have always felt that the right to bear arms is intrinsically linked to maintenance of a militia, not self-defense, etc. In the Guantonamo case, Scalia argued that allowing the detainees habeas corpus rights would result in the deaths of many Americans. If such an argument is reasonable grounds for a judicial opinion (and I don't think it is but Scalia does), then I am confused as to why he overlooked it the Heller case...

I was about to say that individual states should still have the ability to ban guns if they want to, but then I realized that the Bill of Rights overrides the rights of the states.