I am searching through the archives, but its from like 2005. Groups like Focus on the Family and other religious / social conservative interest groups routinely use cases like that as examples of what they see as federal judiciary activism.
"You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)
So it's up to the States to decide if citizens can strap up like a cowboy and walk through town?
One of the reasons why compromise with gun banners is not really possible is that we know owning guns does not cause crime and so do they. Thus compromises designed to increase public safety--which is how the ARC couches their arguments--are inherently dishonest. The purpose of the ARC is to ban guns owned by people who don't commit crime.
The States have to comply with the Bill of Rights, too. That's what the Fourteenth Amendment says.
Oh. Gee. Golly. The Second Amendment (that's part of the Bill of Rights) says government can't infringe on one's ownership or carrying of firearms.
Shame, isn't it, that the Magic Hispanic Twat the Messiah appointed to the USSC simply replaced some other air-head anti-Constitutionalist judge, isn't it, so the States are going to have soon stop depriving people of their rights.