Actually, states do have the right to ban hand guns and anything else they want. The decision is then, based on opposition, turned over to the Supreme Court who makes the final decision about the constitutionality of the law. The original state must then abide by the Supreme Court's decision AND it sets precedent for future laws/bans, etc. in other states.
For example, you may remember that recently South Dakota and other states tried to ban abortion despite the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that this ban is a violation of 14th amendment rights. So far, states have lost this battle, but if a state found a way to ban abortion that the Supreme Court would not feel was in violation, it would set an ugly precedent for other states to be able to follow.
Colorado tried to pass an initiative this time around defining a "person" as from the moment of conception. This potentially could have caused not only problems for Roe v. Wade, but many types of birth control and other things protected by the 14th amendment. Fortunately, it was soundly defeated.
The same is true for gun control; the 2nd amendment can be interpreted to apply only to civilian militias and not individuals. If a state wrote a bill that the Supreme Court interpreted this way, it would also set an ugly precedent.
This is why it's important to watch what local lawmakers try to do, not just federal ones.
Originally Posted by yarmonymatoid
I read the decision and it has nothing to do with that. States do not have the right to ban hand gun ownership. The only way gun ownership will be infringed upon is if Obama appoints more idiots like yourself to the court. With his recent appointment of Panetta to the CIA, I guess it shows how important he feels our safety is. You liberals won't last long. Give ya one term.