Pacificapocalypse

I’d never thought I’d say this, but, thank you Supreme Court.

Ok here’s the deal; the definition of the 2nd Amendment has been kicked back and forth for the last century (that’s 100 years kids). The main contention has been this - does the 2nd Amendment confer an individual right or a collective right? Lemme see if I can explain.
Some people view the 2nd Amendment (hereafter referred to as 2ndA) as referring to a collective, that is the militia referenced in the actual wording of the amendment. The Army, the National Guard. In this light the ownership and use of firearms is affirmed when on duty, in the performance of your duties as part of a collective group.
Then again the opposite opinion states that the 2ndA refers to the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and that you do not need to be part of an organized militia, Army or National Guard, in order to legally own firearms.

That’s it. Pretty simply stuff but no court in this great country of ours has decided what exactly is the correct definition.
Until now.
Today the Supreme Court adopted the individual rights view, affirming District of Columbia v. Heller in a 5-4 decision.

This decision by the Supremes will have a ripple effect throughout the country for a very long time; individual cities bans against firearms ownership such as San Francisco’s ill-fated attempt, Chicago’s ban and the now reversed Washington DC ban are all out the window and any future bans, city, state or federal, are in serious question.

And to clear up a common misconception, the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, does not give the right to own firearms (whether collectively or individually) - it simply affirms an existing right. It says nothing about bestowing a right, it simply states that the existing right “shall not be infringed.”

Right on America.