It's the law of the land.  It should have been self-evident the simple language of the Second Amendment, but a bunch of weasel politicians and lawyers have been picking at our birth-right to own guns and defend ourselves.

Here's the second amendment of the US Constitution for those who aren't familiar:  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.

I've taken the summary of the Supreme Court's Heller ruling regarding the DC Gun Ban, then edited it down and added emphasis and my comments.

Supreme Court Says:		Todd Says:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.		I can't believe this was ever in question. You as an individual have the right to own and use a gun.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.  It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.		This ruling can't be used to overturn concealed carry bans, or to argue for gun ownership for folks who shouldn't have them.  However, most states allow concealed carry under highly regulated licensing.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.		Every person who is not forbidden from gun ownership in the United States will be allowed to own a hand gun.  Repeat:  A hand gun ban is outright unconstitutional. Nobody will be forced to lock their guns up for "children's safety."  Keep in mind that the number of children accidentally shot to death in the US is similar to the number who die from having TV's fall on them.  There is no requirement to secure your television properly.  A similar number each year perish in bucket/toilet drownings. Your right to self defense includes your family and property.

I believe the Massachusetts gun laws are in serious jeopardy because the power of each town Chief of Police to arbitrarily issue or refuse to issue firearms permits constitutes a ban on certain classes of weapons in that town, including handguns and rifles with detachable magazines.  The trigger-lock / storage laws are completely unconstitutional.

I don't think Maine's laws will change at all.  There is a law that says every gun must be sold with a trigger lock, but I don't believe there is a law saying I have to USE it.  You need a concealed carry permit to legally carry a concealed handgun, but that seems to be an acceptable limitation to the Supreme Court.

I don't know why someone would want to ban guns from schools and public buildings, it just makes them targets for crazy people.  But at least the court didn't say guns had to be banned from such places.

I also have friends in Canada and Quebec with whom I've discussed t his issue.  They don't seem to feel they have a God-given right to protect themselves, when talking in the abstract.  Yet, every one I have discussed the issue with, I feel, would stove a bad-guy's head in with a brick if they had the chance.  If you feel that the right to defend yourself, your family, and your belongings is a natural right, then the method of defense should not be open for debate.  Your right is to match deadly force with deadly force.  A knife should be met with a gun.  A hand gun is handy, although, you will see the big bore of a shotgun and hundreds of pellets of copper-plated, large-diameter shot if you break into here.

God bless the United States of America.  Below is a picture of a rifle modified to meet California's assault rifle ban.  Hello Kitty.....