Supreme Court decision

[cockerpunk]

Fair enough. I was purposefully being a schmuck. I just respond in kind when people who have no idea what they're talking about try to assign ulterior motives to people they don't like over a decision they don't know.

But seriously, let's start out with this: When the bill of rights was first written, it was designed to only be a restriction on the Federal Government, not a restriction on States.

but that doesn't make any sense. or if it does, then a large number of our freedoms are about to be destroyed. does that mean that states/cities can establish and reinforce religion? how about freedom of assembly and right to a trial with jury? your saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to the states or any lower form of government?

thats a very scary proposition, and not just for gun owners. i value my freedom from religion and my right to free speech above all others, and your saying that unless the state and local goverment explictly protect that, then those freedoms are in danger?

[Mayvik]

but that doesn't make any sense. or if it does, then a large number of our freedoms are about to be destroyed. does that mean that states/cities can establish and reinforce religion? how about freedom of assembly and right to a trial with jury? your saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to the states or any lower form of government?

thats a very scary proposition, and not just for gun owners. i value my freedom from religion and my right to free speech above all others, and your saying that unless the state and local goverment explictly protect that, then those freedoms are in danger?

The key is when it was originally written. There were only 13 states then, and many had similar Bills of Rights. As the country and lawbooks expanded in size, things were not necessarily as compatible anymore. The 14th Amendment with due process and privileges/immunities, and recent cases citing it, have slowly started enforcing that freedoms granted via the Bill of Rights are indeed meant to be applicable to all citizens of the US, and proof to me that they not likely to be destroyed. They may be "further regulated within reason", as this case pointed out, and should those regulations be deemed unreasonable as they inevitably will (soon, as Dbag Daley is already planning...), there will be more cases for SCOTUS to rule on.