Supreme court rules 5-4 to limit local gun bans... 5-4? Why not 9-0?

Why not 9-0 is because the case's central issue was whether or not the Second Amendment should be incorporated against the states. Prior to today (June 28, 2010), it had not been, with the decision on whether to regulate arms being done at the state level.

And you're correct---it said that the federal government has no say in the matter. But the Constitution did not cover the states on this Amendment, or it did not until today.

The 5 goofed here in ruling that it does. The framers decided to leave the decision at the state level to the states, and for 221 years, it worked that way.

Well let's be clear in Heller v DC this same court did in fact vote 9-0 that the rights in the second amendment extend to the individual making it landmark in confirming this as an individual right. The point with Chicago is that the 'ban' was not absolute and an 'individual' abiding by the restrictions set forth by the city could indeed own a firearm. [[ Do NOT presume that I am siding with the City of Chicago]]. What is ironic here is that I hope all those who are celebrating this as a great victory for rights better be prepared to temper that when it comes to their likely shared views on States Rights because you are celebrating the Federal Goverment coming into a sovereign state and overturning local municipal laws. Think about this the next we see a City Hall Nativity or Ten Commandments fight or you attempt to declare a seperation from Federal authority.

Let's count. In the October 2009 Court Term, there have been 12 decisions that went 5-4, out of 91. The courts aren't as sensitive as you seem to think. Read the decisions, not the headlines -- even the political opinions from both sides are well reasoned and based in law.

I don't think political affiliation is the major factor. Justice Stevens, writer of the dissent, was appointed by a Republican, and consistently affirms that he is a Republican.

Your description of the issue is not accurate. The issue was, whether the adoption of the 14th Amendment applied the 2nd Amendment to states and municipalities. None of the Bill of Rights provisions applied to states until the Supreme Court evaluated whether the right embodied in the specific Amendment has a sufficient historical basis to be forced on the states by the 14 Amendment.

The case is not strictly about gun rights, think of it more about federalism.

The issue was that the constitution was written to allow the formation of civilian militias. The majority of conservative judges misread this passage to allow any person to be armed. The minority of the judges read the constitution correctly: guns are not for individual possession.

BTW, only gun nuts think "more guns mean more safety". Watch in horror as the general populace begins packing heat. Civilized nations know fewer guns mean more safely for it's citizens.

I agree with decision, even as a liberal, but the difference in opinion comes from the REST of that amendment. The question is whether we have the right to bear arms for self defense, or just in case we need to overthrow an oppressive government.

Liberals want the 2nd amendment weakened or gone, this way they won't have as much trouble with us silly citizens when they want to destroy the other amendments, not secure our borders, allow criminals to run free, and any other myriad of laws that keep them from the solid foothold on the neck of this country.

The left uses emotion and throws out common sense with any issue. Watch how this left wing Kagan will end up.