Maybe, maybe not. The decision was a bit contradictory when it said that the right to own a firearm for self protection was a fundamental constitutional right, then went on to say that some 'reasonable restrictions' were permissible. They didn't define 'reasonable restrictions' and if something is a fundamental right then one would expect the number of restrictions would be few or none. Count on Daley and other gun control governments to test exactly what 'reasonable restrictions' are.
I only read a few parts of the decision, but it seemed vague to the point of being nearly useless to me. At best, it confirmed SOME right...but left unanswered how much. And it seems to me the anti-gun localities will answer 1%, and leave it to us to challenge them one by one while the cities hope a conservative on the court dies.
As in most things, this is an issue that needs to be fought at the ballot box. The people of Chicago, dead or alive, vote for Daley - so they have no excuse when they are robbed or killed. They don’t WANT to fight back! They don’t WANT freedom! If they did, they’d move to Arizona...
The USSC has ruled that there is a fundamental right to own a firearm for defense at home. But, there is room for a reasonable restriction. Therefore, since guns are dangerous, ownership is prohibited.
And THAT, to the Democrats, would be reasonable.
Let’s take another fundamental right - the right to live.
It would be absolutely ridiculous to say that some “reasonable restrictions” should be allowed on that right.
I know. Libs DO apply “reasonable restrictions” on lives that just happen to be inside a woman’s womb.
And, yes, I consider that absolutely ridiculous.