There has been some discussion about the effect of expanding the Second Ammendment to the extent of the things mentioned here and even further to allow the possession of all military weapons, eliminating the gun control act of 1968 and the 1934 NFA law. Basically no infringement on arms possession. There is speculation this might be the catalyst that would lead to a Constitutional Ammendment to place limits on the Second. I know judges are supposed to make decisions of this kind based on the Constitution but it would be impossible not to consider the consequences of those decisions. Place yourself in that judge's position. How would you decide?
In the Utah case it appears the judge is telling them to go back and make the law more definitive. Define the conditions under which someone's constitutional rights can be taken away. I see nothing wrong with that. I would agree.
