From somewhere else on the web:
"This supreme court rulling is completely meaningless and will change nothing.
They ruled it is a citizen's RIGHT (not priviledge) to own and bear arms.
Yet if this rulling had any effect on actual laws, all gun permits and licenses would now be abolished, because you don't need the government's permit or license in order to excersise a true RIGHT.
Permits and licenses are for priveledges, such as driving an automobile or operating your Ham radios.
Before anyone celebrates this as a victory, ask yourself why you need the government's permission (permit) in order to own a gun, if the supreme court said it is your RIGHT to own one.
It would be like saying you have the right to free speech or to vote, and need a permit or license in order to exercise those rights.
So long as a permit or license is required in order to own a gun, the government (and supreme court) really is saying it is NOT a right, even if the Constitution says it is.
And in the real world, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says, but what your local police officer says.
Until the supreme court rules that it is unconstitutional for the federal, state or local governments to require permits (government permission) to own a gun, the supream court is a farce that doesn't understand the difference between a RIGHT and a government allowed PRIVELEDGE."