>So the Supreme court says that an individual has a right to have a handgun in their own home.
But the question is why would a person feel compelled to do so?
The one thing that I believe–and I admit that I am not a legal scholar–that the majority is missing is that the Constitution was meant to be flexible. If it wasn’t I would (as well as Clarence Thomas) not even be considered a citizen, or even a human being.
Now I wonder if the Court is now courting (no pun intended) lawmakers to put a law–or even an amendment–in place that would put in no uncertain terms that handguns have no business being in someone’s home in this day and age where we do not live under the tyranny of British troops marching in unannounced into our homes.