How does this make it easier for a gang member to get a gun they can't already get today?
The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
So if there was a law prohibiting hand guns, yet criminals still had hand guns are we assuming that by lifting the ban, the criminal element will obtain more hand guns than they need? What's the thought process here? The law didn't work, obviously except for against law abiding citizens. So how does this increase the availability of weapons for felons? Felons aren't supposed to be able to buy these anywhere and anyway.
The painful fact is criminals WILL get the tools they need/want regardless of what we write as law. Drugs are illegal WITHOUT exception (errrr... wrong. Some places alow Pot for medical but I digress). Somehow, drugs are still abundant.
Here's the difference between guns and drugs. Law abiding citizens don't want or need drugs, whereas, some law abiding citizens want or need guns. Why would anyone think for a microsecond that a law against one commodity will work when those same type (if not harsher) laws HAVE NOT worked for another?
Therefore, the liberal thought process of banning hand guns is a disservice for the lawful, whereas, banning drugs is not.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
