Dadburn it, I can't find the story I was reading the other day about this now. But there's an extra layer here: the guy in this case is a gay man, and had the help of a bunch of gay-rights groups to get this case as far as it did. His argument was that as a gay man, the streets are extra unsafe for him. He was chased by a gang of kids while walking down the street with his partner. He claims if he'd not brandished a gun, they would've severely beaten or killed him. What do you think? Is this a useful argument to make, for anyone gay or str8? Anyway, Here's the story about the SCOTUS decision and its implications.

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - a majority of the nine-member court.
Gun rights proponents were encouraged.

I wonder if Clarence Thomas owns a gun.

In 2003, Washington resident Dick Heller, who lives in one of the city's tougher districts, lodged a suit against the local authorities saying his constitutional right to bear arms was being violated. Although his case was initially rejected, he won on appeal to a federal appeals court in March.

Washington officials in turn then lodged a case with the Supreme Court in September insisting that it must rule on the extent of access to handguns, the weapon of choice in two-thirds of robberies and assaults.