Never have seen what handguns have to do with the right to bear arms. As a weapon for a well-armed militia, they're pretty sad. And please do remember that the Constitution states it is for a "well-regulated militia," not to protect a household or an individual. A militia armed with rifles and shotguns would be far better for the security of this country than a handgun. A handgun might protect an individual but that is not what the Second Amendment stated:

"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."

So, I'm glad you think the Supreme Court got something right. This is definitely one time when I totally disagree. It seems the arguments pro and con by the Supreme Court are the same-old same-old. Maybe one day the SC will get it right, but it ain't this time around.

(Ain't it fun to disagree? hehe)