I do agree with some that today's SC ruling on the 2nd Amendment should have been a 9-0 decision for an individual right to keep and bear arms. After all, there are enough quotes from our founding fathers to establish that fact. The 4 votes against says a lot about the socialist/leftist judges on the court, doesn't it?(Read the majority opinion. While not being totally perfect, it has a lot of supporting documentation, quotes, etc.) After all, they really only ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. They punted on other key issues involving the 2nd Amendment. Example, "Because Heller 'CONCEDED' AT ORAL ARGUMENT THAT DC LICENSING LAW IS 'PERMISSIBLE' IF NOT ENFORCED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY, the Court 'ASSUMES' that license will satisfy his 'prayer for relief and DOES NOT ADDRESS THE LICENSING REQUIREMENT'." Mr. Heller should NOT have "CONCEDED" this issue. He made a "faux pas" which kind of let the judges off the hook on this issue. They therefore didn't not openly state for the average American to read whether Heller actually needed a license (= permission from the state) to exercise his Constitutional right in the first place (which he doesn't!). If you read and research the law definition of "right", you will find that you don't need a license (licenses are for privileges/not rights) to practice a right!