Simple. They think the court's decision was wrong.

It would seem to me that the second amendment allows for the establishment of state militias. It is amazing how many people overlook the first of the two clause sentence "a well regulated militia being necessary for a orderly state..." or whatever. But there is a group in the USA that have a desire and they will twist any sentence to achieve their ends. The republicans have worked since the Powell Memo in the 70s to implement their world view, and worked to get a court they liked, and then brought a case that would promote their twisted reading. I think it shows mostly... how ideological the process of our Supreme Court is. If you have to hold off cases for many years cause the make up of people would not give you what you want, and then once you have the make up you want, bring a case... it indicates to me, that there is no universal interpretation of laws. That being said, I would guess that the ACLU will file friend of the court briefs on some if not all gun cases, but I would not expect this to be a ruling they want to ideologically put great effort into promoting, since it seems to go against any common reading of the text.

Cheers! Ricco

So you only think the Supreme Court should have a say when you agree with them then?

I'll point out that, like the ACLU, I don't much care what the Constitution says. I support all of the things it does say, but my concern is over the people's rights as they should be. Not as the government chooses them to be. I just have a differing view, on this and a few other issues, from the ACLU.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

When you get down to it, that's all anyone believes. I don't see pro-lifers arguing that Roe v Wade was a right decision, or opponents of affirmative action arguing that Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was the right decision.

Not that the gun issue is a major one for me. There are several existing gun control laws on the books that I feel should be wiped away tomorrow. That doesn't change the meaning of the text.

I don't agree. Any decision that the supreme court makes, I'll accept as the proper interpretation for the American government. The question is whether or not I'll be willing to live under that governments policies.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

Perhaps if you actually knew the words of the 2nd Amendment, and understood basic English grammar, you wouldn't have that confusion.

There is no way to arrive at your conclusion based upon the following sentence: "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".

Remember, the 2nd Amendment, like ALL of the Bill of Rights, does not grant a right to ANYONE. It establishes limits upon the powers of the federal government. Understanding that simple fact may help clear up any additional confusion you may have.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.