The only possible conclusion that can logically be arrived at....

In D.C. v. Heller the court held:

   "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

   Then the court also states:

   "The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

   How can that possibly be the case when We The People's Constitution states in the "restrictive clause" of Amendment II:

   "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

   In Heller the court acknowledges Cruikshank, which states in part:

   “The people of the states do not ask congress to protect the right, but demand that it shall not interfere with it. Has anything since occurred to give congress legislative power over the subject matter? [NO, it most certainly has NOT.]. . . Grant that this prohibition now prevents the states from interfering with the right . . . Power to enforce the amendment is all that is given to congress. If the amendment is not violated, it has no power over the subject. . . . . in their right to bear arms…”

   How is it that the court not understand:

   “The people of the states do not ask congress to protect the right, but demand that it shall not interfere with it. Has anything since occurred to give congress legislative power over the subject matter?"

   And the States are forbidden from exercising 'power' over the right as well:

   "Grant that this prohibition now prevents the states from interfering with the right"

   That being the actual FACTS of the matter. WHERE did this 'power' magically appear from that suddenly gave the Federal and State governments the 'power' to 'regulate' or "infringe"?

   It is my firm contention that they both have NO Constitutionally delegated 'power' to do ANYTHING about our right to keep and bear arms. Other than to provide punishment for misuse or abuse of that right. Other than that, they BOTH are EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from interferring with the right in ANY way, shape or form. And both our Constitution, and prior [correct] U.S. Supreme Court decisions confirm that contention. The only possible conclusion that can logically be arrived at. Is that the 'court' is being deliberately deceptive, and aiding and abetting in the infringements.