Chicago shot back at last month’s Supreme Court decision that restrained the government’s limit on gun ownership, while still allowing the government to have some regulation. That decision is as vague as it sounds.

The decision basically applied the Second Amendment to all states, and therefore inexplicitly overturned Chicago’s 30-year-old ban on handgun ownership, ruling that people have a right to protect their homes with a gun in any instance.

Just days after the decision, Chicago retaliated by passing another hand-gun restriction that limits its residents to one gun per household with a stricter registration and permit process.

The real kicker is that Chicagoans can no longer purchase a gun in the city, and gun training — a requirement to get the permit — is also not allowed in the city. And thus, people will have to travel farther not only to purchase the gun, but to also learn how shoot it.

Naturally, gun enthusiasts and dealers came in, guns blazin’, to sue Chicago. Just when they thought they had it made after the Supreme Court’s decision, the Chicago mayor shattered their dreams.

It’s difficult for us to fathom some of the on-going debate about gun control or to see the issue from the side of those who believe less-strict policies on gun ownership will ease gun violence.

Saying that allowing more people to own guns is a solution to gun violence is like saying that the solution to America’s obesity is to build more fast-food restaurants.

We can’t help but agree with Chicago’s decision and are angry that the Supreme Court would be so blind as to limit any state’s rights to make decisions on gun ownership.

Chicago has been a city plagued by gun violence, which is obviously why it initiated the ban in the first place.

Frankly, we wish Florida, or at least the high-crime cities in Florida, could have the same new laws as Chicago, if not even stricter.

States and cities have a variety of laws that restrict gun ownership, such as requiring mental health background checks or waiting periods before purchases.

The Supreme Court deeming gun ownership to be a fundamental right to individuals, like freedom of speech, will provide a means for those who want to challenge local laws, as it did for Chicago.

As of right now, Florida has reasonable gun laws. Permit requirements include proof of residency, minimum age, submitting fingerprints, passing a computerized instant background check, attending a certified handgun/firearm safety class and paying a required fee, according to the Florida Department of Agriculture Consumer services.

Yet gun violence still claims many lives in Florida.

The court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment could easily hurt any state’s laws concerning gun ownership.

If it were up to us, the federal government would only interfere with a state’s gun laws if the laws were too lenient, like Texas, where anyone and their mother could easily attain a gun.

The National Rifle Association was ecstatic about the decision, and anything that makes them happy scares us.

The decision will only give them more ammo to push the envelope for their agenda.