It would be nice if we could add the draconian California micro-stamping and lead ban laws along with the pending insane ammunition bill to Connecticut’s list as suggested by the following opinion from the Republican American (Waterbury, CT). The article contends that “guidance” offered by the Court will prove to be contentious for years to come.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS case will only decide on the individual ownership issue without regard to whacko laws that over regulate our legally-owned weapons and tax us to death with fees. Any guidance given will likely be ignored by states and local governments.
State Gun Bills Should Be Spiked
When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy says the Bill of Rights guarantees Americans’ “general right to bear arms,” chances are very good the tone and direction of the long national debate over gun laws is about to change radically.
. . .
It’s good that justices finally will rule the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms, but their desire to offer guidance on what constitutes “reasonable” and “common-sense” gun restrictions may prove problematic for legislatures, lower courts and law-abiding citizens for years to come. What a sportsman would consider common sense, for example, no doubt would seem unreasonable to a gun-controller.
With the gun debate changing so dramatically, it makes sense for Connecticut lawmakers to shelve the two unreasonable gun-control bills under consideration. The first would mandate serial numbers on bullets, the second, firing pins that stamp a code on the shell cartridge.
In theory, these measures would enable police to trace the bullets to their owner. But in the real world, the serial number would be obliterated the instant the bullet strikes an object less malleable than lead. Meanwhile, the stamping technology is in its infancy, is easily defeated, would not be required on the types of guns favored by criminals, and would require gun companies to retool their manufacturing and assembly processes; most have said it would be more economical to move their operations and high-paying jobs to other states. Finally, both bills would impose expensive unfunded costs on state and local police without guaranteeing any improvement in public safety.
Lawmakers should be in no hurry to enact gun-control laws that justices likely will vaporize when they strike down the D.C. gun ban in June.
I added the emphasis.
U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) led the charge in the U.S. Congress where she, and 54 other Senators, along with 250 U. S. Representatives and Vice President Dick Cheney signed on to one of the many amici filed in the D.C. vs. Heller case. Senator Hutchison also authored an article containing rationale on how the 
Meanwhile, Texas Solicitor General 
In general, lawful gun ownership is a pretty simple matter. The Founders established gun-owner rights so that citizens would possess and be able to exercise the universal right of self-defense. Guns enable their owners to protect themselves from robbery and assault more successfully and more safely than they otherwise would be able to. The danger of laws like the D.C. handgun ban is that they limit the availability of legal guns to people who want to use them for legitimate reasons, such as self-defense (let alone hunting, sport shooting, collecting), while doing nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns.
At Virginia Tech last spring, 32 people were gunned down in a gun-free zone. At Columbine High School in 1999, 13 innocent people were killed. In a Killeen, Texas, café in 1991, 23 died at the hands of a gunman run amok. And in a Southern California McDonalds restaurant in 1984, 21 lost their lives when a shooter went berserk. These are just a few of the shooting incidents around the world, all enabled by the same failure: there was no way to stop those responsible for perpetrating the killings.
“The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all. I am not ready to take that risk. I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.” — Ronald Reagan
