Top News

  We asked if you agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that Americans may own guns for hunting and protection. Here are your responses.


Absolutely perfect. The wacko communistic and totalitarian types that do not trust the citizenry finally got slapped down. And, rightfully so. They are nothing but a bunch of elitists who try to convince the public that -- oh, just call the cops, they can protect you, or your not competent to protect yourself. Remember the old saw - The Pen is Mightier Than the Sword. Makes me wonder that these elitists allow us to vote - guess they think the sword is mightier -- Hypocrits comes to mind. Take note where Obama is on this issue - the wrong side! He thinks firearm possession is about hunting. How in the world did he get so educated yet so out of touch with what our constitution and Bill of Rights mean? Even, Prof. Larry Tribe at Harvard, the dean of liberal constitutional lawyers, acknowledged 3 years ago in his latest book on constitutional law that the 2nd Amendment is CLEARLY an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. --Ricardo

Absolutely not. Scalia and the other right-wing justices chose to interpret the 2nd amendment through their own biases. --Anthony DaVino

Yes, because the constitution allows it. That simple!! --Tom O'Loughlin

Yes, I agree with the decision and I believe the Constitution says it. Look out Chicago, the freedom train is rolling in!!! --Tom

I AGREE! it's a GREAT DAY in the U.S.A. I'm so happy the supreme court upheld the 2nd amendment. This country must trust in law abiding citizens and this decision is for the good people of this country! --Gena

I agree with the entire decision as written in the majority opinion. The Supreme Court ruled years ago that city police forces are not responsible for the protection of individual citizens within their jurisdiction. Therefore, individual citizens must be allowed free access to the tools needed to protect themselves until law enforcement can arrive on the scene. Like the old saw goes, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." --Greg Allmont

I absolutely agree with the Court's decision. I can read! Those who do not support an individual right to bear arms have to suspend rational thought and pretend that the 2nd Amendment does not say what it says. It is absurd to suppose that the founding fathers did not support an individual's right to bear arms. The founding fathers were far more fearful of the Government - that was a major reason they wanted gun rights for individuals. --Stephen Pickett

No. Unless you are in the military, a hunter, or etc.. you do NOT need a gun! --Christina

Absolutely - the SC finally read the Constitution without changing the words. --Rick

Yes, I agree with the ruling. The government has proven that they cannot protect us, so we need the means to protect ourselves. --Jim Garrigan

The 2nd amendment is very clear. Protection of individual rights to bear arms. No law should ever take that right away. --"William Rights"

I agree completely. The court stood up for the Constitution! --Jim Oyer

yes. We have had so many rights taken away it is about time we won one....Hitler took away gun rights early in his reign. Liberals would like to do the same --Ken Som

Yes i wholeheartly agree with todays ruling.Shame on Obama fo not supporting the right to keep and bear arms. McCain has my vote. --Mark J. Christian

I disagree with the decision because all that will do is increase crime and shootings in the home. There will be more young kids killing in schools because of the fact that they will be able to obtain those guns at home. If we are ever to live in peace and harmony as humans the mindset of aggression needs to be changed. This ruling does nothing but uphold that. When the negative happenings begin and only grow larger they will have to really sit and rethink that what they did was justified!! --Buzzard's Korner

YES!!! One of the reasons the founding fathers put the clause in the Constitution was to keep the government in check, and served as a final guarantee that the government could not come against the people and keep them in servitude. It was a reaction to what had happened in England. Sadly, most people don't even know this because of our water-downed school systems which choose to teach political correctness rather than facts. The left can't handle that, so they conveniently leave truth out, in favor of dogma. --Glenn Hansen

I absolutely agree that we as citizens of the U.S. may own guns!! The constitution is CLEAR!!! We have four fools on the Supreme Court that would throw away the Constitution if they had their way and recently showed their disdain for their own country by allowing Habeus Corpus for enemy combatents held @ Guantanamo. --Leroy Meyers

I strongly agree with the Supreme Court's decision. Law abiding citizens should not have their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms stripped away from them because politicians can?t figure out how to make crime go away and the courts and law enforcement agencies cannot control those people who would use a gun (or any other object that could be used as a weapon) from committing illegal acts. And how typical for Chicago alderman to exempt themselves from the laws they make. What made their right to protecting themselves more important than that of the average law abiding citizen? Typical hypocrisy. We already have too many gun laws on the books and yet, criminals still break the law with them. Criminals break laws. This country needs stiffer sentences for repeat offenders, drug dealers, those addicted to drugs who commit crimes and gang members and more prisons to house them in. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Keep criminals off the street and let people protect themselves when the police can't because they're too busy building revenue by setting up road block seat belt checks, speed traps and issuing parking tickets instead of patrolling the streets. --Don

they should ban guns anyhow because thats how guns get stolen and homicide exist. guns should be only for law enforcement ! --gabriela

This is a great ruling. People in the U.S. need to be able to protect themselves from invasion by our enemies, like the French and the British. --amc

YES!!!!!!!! --lkmc

It is about time that the freedoms of the people were upheld. Criminals are able to purchase any type of guns they desire but it is the citizens who follow the laws are the only ones that would consider following a ban. Now the citizens along with the criminals will have the ability to protect themselves. Thank you for allowing the people of this country to protect their homes and hopefully this will also make other think before entering anothers home! --Brian

Thank God, it's about time the Supreme Court did thier job and followed the Constitution. --David Pape

Great ruling & great score! Pistol Packing Patriots - 5 Puke Faced Liberal Trash - 4 --Al Thompson

The ruling is fine. The end result was inevitable. --warmachine

I agree with the ruling. Law abiding citizens have the right to own a gun to protect themselves from criminals. No longer should criminals be the only ones to have access to a gun. --Tony

Yes I agree, the 5-4 5uling is another reason to keep nobama out --Art Modgling

It should not have even been this close. We as American citizens have the full right to carry guns to protect ourselves and to hunt. Its now a good thing that PRES Bush did to preserve our right to do so. If he did nothing else he did orotect us via the supreme court nominees. thank GOD --John Mariner

I agree with SCOTUS decision because gun ownership is an individual right that the government recognized, not a right that the government bestowed on us. --Dennis Stonehocker

I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. However, it is not only about "hunting and protection" as your question pretends. It is primarily about insuring that the government never enjoys a monopoly on the use of force. Having just defeated the world's only Super Power, THAT concern was the Founder's primary reason for including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. --Frank Brady

Yes. I can read, write and understand English. I refuse to surrender my rights to any government, at any time, and under any threat of punishment. I am a Free Man and intend to remain so. --Leon C. Gall

Yes, I agree. Laws only keep honest people honest. Thanks for upholding the Constitution. --Tim

Yes,If the second admendment ever falls the balance of the Constitution will be worthless! --Dennis Showman

Long live the Bill of Rights. --RLG

I do agree even though it won't mean an end to the anti-gun lefts efforts to limit American personal rights. I just can't figure out how the four liberal judges on the court can contort themselves to point where they resemble pretzels in coming up with the dissent. Justice Scalia uses a common sense approach and shows reasoned thought when showing the framers intent in the constitution. Unlike the liberal side of the court who usually can show no historical precedence or coinciding references when they are in the majority. The will at times refer to international or some other countries laws to bolster their positions. Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens need to realize this is America and our constitution does not defer to any other law and it is not a living document as some like to say. The framers said what they meant and meant what they said. It's time for activist judges to stop making laws from the bench when the constitution doesn't suit their views. Don't take the oath to uphold the laws of the United States if you have no intention of doing so. --Stanley Arms

I agree with it, everyone already new what it meant. I can only wish this will pave the way for criminal prosecution of people like Ray Nagin, Kathleen Blanco, the DC city fathers, the Chicago city fathers, etc. At the very least people convicted under these laws are owed reparations, there name cleared and so forth. I hope they get millions and millions. --Clay Cross

100% yes. Why? That crazy second amendment thing! This is a duh. If you want prohibition of guns go to Europe. --Scott

Yes absolutely. This is long overdue and hopefully will be the start of a trend in confirming individual, and states rights at the framers intended. --James Vance

YES!!!! You have to remember, crimminals (by definition) don't respect the law...citizens do. ANy gun control law only constrains citizens form their right to self defense...the crimminals will get guns and use them regardless of what "laws" are on the book...it's simple logic folks. Look at Washington D.C. and Chicago..both have strict "gun control" laws, yet there crime is out of control....clear data to show the liberal mindset of controlling gun ownership doesn't work. THis gets to the root of the failed philosophy of the socialist/liberl view...you can't regulate huma nature...it takes a value system internalized by the individuale and accountability to keep sociaty in check. If a criminal breaks into my home, I will hold them accountable by blowing a hole in their chest, thus holding them accountable for their actions....gives the criminal something to fear now doesn't it! --B

More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens = more fearful criminals! It is a basic constitutional right of Americans!! Yeah!! --John Turco

Bravo Bravo Bravo ! It's about time. I would much rather live among well armed law abiding citizens than in a world where only the lawless carry such weapons. --John Jeffrey

I agree with the gun ban ruling. We can now protect ourselves. The Court finally got one right. --JD

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS --B

yes. crime goes down in cities where criminals know civilians are allowed to carry guns. a fact the media ignores. --Jane Flagg

I agree. It's the Constitution. I don't have any guns, but I have the right to have them if I want. --Frank Gravinsky

Yes, I agree. I can't fathom why an issue like this would be questioned at all, let alone coming to a narrow 5 to 4 votes. I believe the Constitution is quite clear on this issue. It all comes back to common sense mantras that have been used in connection with this matter over time -- 'guns don't kill people -- people kill people' -- and further, those who desire to use guns will obtain one regardless of any law against their use -- another of the many issues of the day that fall into the 'Duh, no kidding' category. --Dave Curtis

Yes I agree as this is the intent of the founding fathers! --Craig Hopkins

Yes, if McCain is not elected, then we will need our own protection.The military will be down-graded to a local police force. --Ernie

Yes I agree, the 2nd Amendment is about protecting ourselves from tyranny and criminals, it is not about duck hunting. --Terry C.

YES I do agree, I think this a major decision for all Americans, It upholds the Second Amendment. It is about time. --Brian Bassett

Absolutely.agree with it. The way things are going in our inner cities, you're going to need a gun to protect yourself. Thugs wont be living theirs up and we only seem to catch and release them if they do get arrested. --tr88

Yes, this nonsense of not being able to own a gun (handgun or rifle) doesn't make anyone safer. It's the criminal that will ignore the law and carry out in the open. It's against the law to rob a bank, but does that stop criminals from doing it? --Bob

yes I strongly agree with it. I have owned persoanl guns for over 40 years. I believe if any city or state imposes a ban they should have their Federal Funding from the Federal Govt. stopped. --Mal

I agree completely. The ban only kept guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. It never slowed down criminals. The ban was a stupid idea, and thanks to the ruling today, it's an unconstitutional idea. --Dave G.

The decision was 5-4. Clearly the number one reason Obama is a very poor choice for President. As his Marxist roots indicate, he will only nominate activist liberal judges to the court. This will be a disaster for our nation, in my opinion. It is about time these unconstitutional law get removed, period. --RonC

ABSOLUTELY!!!! Big thumbs up to the Supremes and Tto GWB for his part in taking this court back from the libs --Mark

I totally disagree with the Supreme Court's decision. The flood gates will now open and handguns, semi-automatic weapons, machine guns...you name it will now be available and legal EVERYWHERE. Just as some guy in Kentucky has an argument with his supervisor and goes home on his break and gets his gun comes back and 6 are dead. What's it going to take? Some prominent Republican getting shot to get guns off the streets. I'm moving to Australia! --Ed

Yes. It is time the Second Amendment, second only to the right for free speech, was fully upheld. --Ed Nelson

The decision should have been a wider victory. This proves that even the basic rights as written under the Bill of Rights is no longer considered basic by those who wish to write new laws at their whim. There's a certain similarity with these types and their thinking. If you wish to have your basic Bill of Rights changed and made into something malleable and living, then go ahead and vote for those and their kind. That means a President Obama who will look to the American Civil Liberties Union and other socialists/marxists of like mind. And then NAMBLA (North American Boys Love Association) and such will be protected. You can count on it. --RW

Of course I agree since I can read and understand what the constitution states. Only the communist/socialist/liberal crowd wnats to dis-arm America. --BigArch

The Supreme Court's decision acknowledges the inalienable right to bear arms (God given and irrevocable by man) for the purpose of self defense and hunting, however, the original intent is to protect against a tyranical government. So enjoy your perceived rights to free speech, freedom of religion, and all the rest while they last, because with out the 2nd amendment in its intended manisfestation, they are but fleeting and vaporous thoughts. The intent of every founding father concerning this and all the amendments are easily researchable and understandable, which is why it is hard to understand why the issue has confounded so many for so long. --Joshua Roberts

Long over due, finally a decision to uphold a citizens Constitutional Right to lawfully own a firearm for self defense. --Bill Brennan

I absolutely agree with the ruling. It's about time. DC has the highest gun crime counts- but guns are outlawed! It's easy to break into someone's home knowing they don't have anything to defend themselves. Best of luck DC residents! --Ken Hartley

Of course I agree. The ruling should have been unanimous. I never could comprehend how individual states and local governments can take away constitutional rights at will. If a state or local government can take away an individual's right bear arms, what's stopping them from taking away free speech and other fundamental rights? --Patrick Maloney

Finally the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been upheld!! Long Live the Constitution! --Gregg

Yes. But not with McCain's slamming of Chicago law. I am glad there is a no-gun law in Chicago. There is NO need for guns with millions of people around, and thousands of policemen, most of which just give parking tickets hourly. --Miguel E. Hernandez

Now that they understand "the right of the people" lets get 'em started on "shall not be infringed" --Rob W.

I agree that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms,both as a self protection issue and also to keep our government from getting out of control. The government is afraid of a population that is armed. look at the vote,if the Dems had just one more say on the bench we would now be in big trouble. That alone is reason enough to not vote for the Dems. --Lynn Williams

I used to be against citizens owning guns. However, after fighting off my own attacker I realize that the only way to stop crime is to fight back. If criminals know there is a chance they could be harmed they might think twice before attacking someone. If someone enters my home uninvited it is my RIGHT as a human being to defend myself with any means possible. --Erin

I do not agree. Today, there is a breaking story right in the Chicagoland area where a toddler shot himself with a gun. It is no secret guns are a problem. I think the Court recognizes that. Something has to be done about it. Congress this is your "cue" to repeal the 2nd Amendment. It's time. --Paraisia

I agree with the decision but do not think it went far enough. Americans have the right to protect themselves from all enemies foreign and domestic. This includes our own governments, Federal, State, and Local. --Earl Vickery

Damn Right I agree. It's about time the court read the constitution for what its plain language says and stopped taking the side of the liberals who want to control everything we do. Citizens are armed, subjects are disarmed. --Stanley Tate

Mayor Daley said, "...and one thing we know -- the more guns in society, the more victims you have in violent crimes." Oh, really? So explain the historically low per capita violent crime rates in the United States, comparable to 30 years ago, with tens of millions of new guns bought since then? Only cities such as Washington DC (and Chicago) haven't seen comparable decreases in violent crime rates. Could it be their handgun bans? --ADT

Yes ,the founding fathers were very wise to craft the second amendment as it reads. Countries like the UK with their total ban have experienced a 300% increase in street and home invasion crimes. Congratulations. --John Horton

Yes. Thank God. We may need them in the next four years --John D. Gray

yes, this is one of the most basic rights we have in this country. it is what makes us free!!!! --Dan Eubank

I agree-Guns do not kill or injure-People do that, there are enough gun law all that is needed is to strictly enforce them. I think Illinois should have the right to carry law, this has been a deterent in states that have such laws. --Gordon Veerman

No. It's a decision from a court bought and paid for by the NRA and the right- wing Bushies. --RTM

YES THANK GOD THEY GOT IT RIGHT --Larry Daley

What is scary is the fact that there were four justices that thought it was OK to go against the constitution. --Pepsiholic

The ruling shows that Democrats/Liberals hate the thought of Americans being able to defend themselves. Remember, when seconds count the Police are minutes away! I live in rural Arizona. All of my neighbors have firearms and ammo. There is virtually no crime! Anyone committing a home invasion would be committing suicide. As it should be. --Hon. Robert Lynch

Our Rights and freedoms have been reaffirmed. --1SG

GREAT --Bill Sanders

I agree with this decision to allow us the right of self-defense. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Law abiding citizens that are armed can defend themselves and others from criminals that are already armed, and don't obey any laws anyway. A criminal is less likely to prey on someone who might shoot back. --Thomas Taegel

The Supreme Court has allowed scared amateur gun owners the right to shoot wildly in the night at "sounds" they think are being made by intruders only to find that they've shot at a loved one coming home unexpectedly. What a disaster this court has unleashed in their interpretation of the second ammendment. --Ira Greenfest

Absolutely! It's about time the courts realize that liberals continue to infringe on citizens' rights, and that there unintended consequences of such laws leave cities with staggering violent crime, when only the criminals have guns and law-abiding citizens cannot. Victory for common sense! --Silencer

Yes, I agree with the SC. A great day for the law abiding American People and the Constitution. I can see the need for waiting periods, background checks, and No AK-47s; but not an all out ban. Bush's America: 100 percent Al-Qaida free since 2001 --Jim, Bolingbrook

It is about time!!! Great decision!!! --Walter K.

Absolutely! The founders of this nation put that right in the Bill of Rights to be a check in case the American government could no longer protect "We the People" and a militia is needed! Who makes up the militia? - Individual Citizens!!! So, individual citizens need to have the right to carry their own weapons for self protection and survival. It's a no brainer, people. Thank goodness we still have a Supreme Court that has some common sense. --Mary-Beth Frazee

It's about time. The ruling and the majority opinion is reasonable and sound. Unfortunately, Chicago's Mayor is oblivious to the reality of that criminals don't really care about his gun bans, but good folks in Chicago are forced to either give up their right to self defense or become defacto criminals under the foolish stewardship Mayor Daley. The same bans exist all over Chicago, but if you plot the violence on a map, you'll see the problem is about something other than the right of citizens to keep arms. The Mayor can keep clicking his heels together and wishing for simple solutions, but until he acknowledges some hard truths, the city and those neighborhoods will remain under seige. --Lucy Merten

I think the decision is wonderful. All the criminals are running around with guns and they don't hesitate to use them, so why shouldn't we be able to arm ourselves for protection? I can't believe the ban was ever implemented in the first place. --Cammi Camacho

No. It is disturbing that four members remain on the court that can rationalize each of their Orwellian decisions. --Fieguth

Yes I agree with the Supreme Court. The second amendment clearly states an individuals right to keep and bear arms.. --Knot Jammin Jr.

It's about time, we must be able to protect ourselves from the lawless in our society. --Rito

God bless America. --Joe

Hell yes. It's about time. Why should I want to carry a gun around with me,especially in a city with your reputation? Well, a cop is too heavy to carry around under my arm. I absolutly agree with the premise that states, "More guns, less crime." It also gives the authorities more time to concentrate on real criminals and crooked politicians and allows more jail space for them. --Sigmund

Of course I agree with the Supreme Court ruling! Why anyone with any sense would give up the right to defend themselves is beyond me. The helpless can still be helpless all they want. --ems

It's a good 1st step, but needs to be supported by more decisions, such as incorporating the 14th amendment into the system, and disallowing states to infringe upon the right to bear arms. --Robb Nunya

I agree completely. THe only thing that bothers me is that it was not a 9-0 decision. --K. Menzel

Yes I do !! There is no doubt, if anyone reads the writings of the framers and is honest, the Supreme Court made the right decision. It is scary to think anti-gun zealots ignore the writings of the framers to suit their own political leanings. --Jim

I strongly agree with the court ruling. I believe this is exactly what the framers of our constitution wanted for us. --Jay Reed

The ruleing did not go far enough. It is a right that does not stop at the front door, a city line or a state line. I have a RIGHT to carry to work, school, church or anywhere else. --Siobhra DeWar

It's good, but it didn't go far enough. --Bill Faulkner

Yes, if people actually took the time to read and understand the Constitution they would comprehend the intent of our founding fathers. The second amendment is a protection against tyranical politicians. --Joe

YES! Follow the Constitution! --DAFranklin

Absolutely a CORRECT decision was handed down today. Am I to believe that since Chicago's handgun ban in 1982 that NO CRIME involving a handgun has occured since they are "illegal"? That's ridiculous. I DARE someone to go back 1982 to the present and count the number of crimes commited in Chicago involving a handgun and tell me that the "ban" keeps those crimes from happening! The only thing it prevents is LAW-ABIDING citizens from being able to defend themselves from the criminals who prey on them. It's painfully obvious that this 'ban' is illegal and immoral and does NOTHING to prevent crime!!! --Zak

I partially agree...the main reason for the amendment wasn't for home defense or hunting...it was specifically to protect citizens from the U.S. government; it was a protection against tyranny. And requiring a license to own a handgun is a violation of the *right* to own a gun. If a license is required, it is not a right, but a privilege. The Supreme Court has already ruled that things are either a right or a privilege - they can't be both. I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone here what happens when only the privileged class is allowed to have weapons. --Rick

It's about time people can start defending themselves in Chicago! After the Chicago ban is declared unconstitutional, all of the gun control advocates should show their conviction by placing a large "GUN FREE HOME" sign in their front window. Then see where the burglaries take place! --Steve

The salient portion of the Second Amendment states, "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say "the right of a militia to bear arms shall not be infringed." By the way, how can you have unlawful shootings in Chicago when handguns have been banned? Hmmm. You liberal cities are always good for a laugh. --Glenn Thomas

I agree, but am not surprised. As a gun owner, I and many like me have been telling Liberal dunderheads this for decades. This is a good decision for Americans. --Robert Mitchell

Finally, a breath of fresh air and common sense coming out of the SCOTUS! It's the 2nd Amendment which ultimately protects the 1st and all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. If a person has no right of self-defense, he is defenseless against anyone who wishes to violate all of his other rights, including a government gone sour. When only the government and criminals possess firearms, all other human rights are illusory. --Larry

Absolutely agree, banning weapons is not going to stop the criminals from having them, I think that has been proven. The general law abiding civilian should have a right to protect him or herself. And to be able to go hunting, trap shooting or to the range. Some of us find it enjoyable. --Kevin

Yes yes yes. This is America not europe where crime is out of this world and citizens can't defend themselves. Hooray for the 5 consenting justices. --Rick Moore

Absolutely, YES. The right to bear arms is codified in the US Constitution. Consider that the Supreme Court has assigned the right to abortion based on a liberal interpretation of the unreasonable search and seizure provisions on the Constitution. A reference to abortion does not exist in the US Constitution. But the right to bear arms IS in the Constitution. So it is consistent and correct to liberally interpret that provision, too. --"The Pope"

ABSOLUTELY!! It's about time every law abiding, competent citizen has the right to defend themselves against criminals by using firearms. DC has one of the worst violent crime rates in the country. Why not? The criminals know they're the only ones that are armed. In England, with a total gun ban, they have rampant knife violence. Take away the knives and they'll have fork violence. Take away the forks and people will be killing each other with spoons. The problem isn't the choice of weapon, it's the criminal. Finally, the highest court in the land has had the courage to tackle the issue and rule appropriately. --Bruce Kindy

Yes. Laws can still prohibit guns at school, sales to felons and the mentally incompetent and allow for licensing. Rules can be made, however my right to have guns in my home for safety or to hunt are rightly protected. This is a basic freedom that is a part of our heritage. As a former governemnt teacher it is great to see common sense exercized here. The five intelligent members of the court looked at the constitution and the "why" of this amendment. God bless America and may we remain free. By the way, I am not a gun owner, but I am a strict constructionist who is sick of judges legislating from the bench. I may be an Independent, but this is why I am voting for McCain. --Dr. Fred Eichelman

This ruling and reaffirmed my faith in the Supreme Court. It is clear to over 90% of Americans that this is an individual right. It is sad to see the Justices placed on the bench by the democrats are the ones who want to remove out rights. --Joe Johnson

it is a fundamental ritght to protect yourself..only deranged persons/politicians would limit that right..that includes daley et al --Love Freedom

Yes I do. The Mayor cited that too many guns, police shootings, etc. You honestly think that matters? If nothing, the fact that Chicago has a ban and he still cites this as a concern strengthens the argument that gun laws are ineffective, because here's a little tip CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT LAWS! So really your bans and such only disarm a society and hurt law abiding citizens. Bottom line, criminals are going to have guns regardless, they're criminals. Personally, I'd rather have them looking over their shoulders rather than the other way around. I mean, do you really want them thinking they have free reign or having to stop and think, if I break into this house, they may call 911 and I'll have to run or, they may have gun and I may die. Kind of makes them think. --Brad

Oh, get a grip - today's ruling has absolutely NO relevance to Chicago and its city ordinances. It clearly, and obviously, only relates to laws passed by the federal government and its subdivisions, such as DC. Talk about needless scare-mongering. CBS Chicago should be ashamed. --David Hilton

Yes. The Second Amendment gives no rights, but preserves the right that we all have as humans to protect ourselves and to have effective tools to do so. --Paul

Yes, Because it IS my right! --Paul D

I think its GREAT. Law abiding citizens should have the right to defend themselves. --S Kirby

don't agree. regardless, the ruling will not strike down chicago's ban. the 2nd amendment applies only to legislation enacted by the federal government and its territories (like DC). it does not limit the powers of state and local government. Chicago is free to whatever it wants within the limits of the Ill constitution. --wi

well done! who cares why we have a civil right to own and bear arms-- we have that civil right spelled out in the constitution. convicted felons on the other hand lose their civil rights upon conviction. --Fred

Yes, I do agree with the decision. Guns are necessary for hunting and protection of the innocent afterall, the criminals have them and they don't care if they are compliant with the law of not and the police can't be everywhere. --Rhonda Holt

Yes, decision is perfect. Why? Because it is the correct interpretation of the Constitution - and because "crime" generally goes down (with the exception of criminals and gang bangers having illegal guns killing each other) where carry is allowed. The criminals don't know (unless some sleazy print media reports the carry permit holders) It gives law abiding citizens a chance to survive - now if we can just get the Federal judges to quit not allowing guns carried by registered individuals locked in their cars in the company parking lots (Using flawed property rights and OSHA type reasoning) the public can be genuinely safer. Congratulations to the people of D.C. --Ron

YES I do agree. DC has one of worst crime rates in the US. I believe this will CUT the crime rate a good %. --Ray Cameron

I completely agree with the Supreme Court's decision this morning, and I wholeheartedly look forward to the day when the City of Chicago must overturn its ban on handguns. When will those in government leadership understand that the crime problem is due to CRIMINALS who attained their weapons illegally in the first place? And when will people wake up and understand that the police are not here to protect you? By the time the police show up, the crime has already been committed, and thanks to the gun ban, you were completely unable to defend yourself. It is time to balance the scales in this city-- law abiding citizens ought to have the right to protect themselves. Thanks to the Supreme Court decision today, we have every right to demand that the City of Chicago abide by the constitution. --Phyllis DeMarco

It's about time they got something right. The police certainly can't protect us and people certainly deserve the right to protect themselves from harm. --Joe Newmark

This is a long-awaited win for civil liberties. We have a right and responsibility to provide for our own personal defense and for the defense of our state (nation, community). --jmpmstr

I agree entirely with the Court's decision in Heller. They correctly interpereted the second Amendment to the Constitution in overturning the District's law banning law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms to protect themselves. Chicago's similar anti-gun ownership laws are also unconstitutional and will soon be overturned. --Locke Wilde

Absolutely! It's about time they acknowledged our rights as prescribed by the founders. GOA is correct when they say what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? --J.D.

This is the only outcome that is consistent with the constitution. The government does not give the citisens rights, it is the other way around. The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! --Dennis Fliess

(© MMIX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Editor's Picks

• Gay Celebrities
• Did You Know? Stars From Chicago!
• Celebs Who Lean To The Right
• Real Or Fake?