Bang! Bang! A lot of noise has been made lately about gun control, with good cause. The Supreme Court has decided on a new law of the land that could make guns more accessible to people, and could also put past legal decisions on gun laws nationwide into jeopardy.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday to ban individual states’ abilities to ban guns with their decision in the case McDonald v. City of Chicago. The case started out with a law that Chicago had passed to ban handguns.

One citizen came forward with a lawsuit saying that the ban impeded his rights under the 2nd Amendment to keep and bear arms, that by not being able to own a handgun diminished his ability to protect himself. It went all the way to the Supreme Courts and they found that the rights of the individual came before the states.

This is a huge victory for pro-gun associations and a blow to the city of Chicago and other gun opponents nationwide. The 14th Amendment’s due process clause forces the government to be subservient to the Supreme Laws of the Land, the Constitution, and has to protect the rights of the people from the states. Because of this, the Supreme Court’s recent decision must be applied to all the states.

But what does this mean for former gun control laws? Well because of this decision gun control laws and bans across the nation could be thrown into legal disputes and go back to the courts, which would in turn have to overturn the former decisions.

This could amount to hundreds of gun control cases being brought back to courts nationwide.

Besides the upswing in legal cases involving gun control, there are most likely going to be even more ramifications from the recent decision. While the Supreme Court said guns could not be banned there was significant room left for new restrictions and regulations to be put in place.

Some talk of what could take place has already starting in Chicago and some of it has centered around possible fingerprinting customers who purchase guns, this being done in the hopes that it will reduce crimes.

There are a couple problems with this scenario. Many guns that crimes are committed with are stolen in the first place. So if the fingerprints were looked up on the gun a crime was committed with the police would find the innocent original owner. Would the original owner be punished for having his gun stolen from him?

The regulations coming with law need careful thought and consideration by the states and their law-making bodies, otherwise it would impede more on the individual rights then banning guns would in the first place. The Supreme Court also left room for the decision to be further disputed at a later date.

The Supreme Court’s gun control decision may have profound effects on the United States and whether the consequences are good or bad it is something that the public should look at both sides of the argument and keep an open mind about, especially if the state’s individual regulatory practices come to a vote.