Just my opinion on all this but... The case before the court was based on a specific claim, therefore the judgment addresses the specifics of the case at the time it's brought forth. Although it was a 5/4 with 2 dissenting opinions (and those 4 are a scary report on where society is at), it is interesting to note that all 9 recognized it an INDIVIDUAL right. That should forever cement that argument. What evil lurks? New (repackaged?) and devious ways to apply 'reasonable restrictions'.