The Supreme Court ruled that 5-4 (with the four judges against it adopting the perspective I just outlined), so it's not as OBVIOUS as you may think. I'm not saying that my explanation is the only correct one - just that it's not as clear-cut as some people make it to be.
Just because four people voted against it doesn't mean it isn't obvious. Just that four people don't care about what the constitution obviously says and want to rule over us like kings.
When that context is no longer applicable, then, it is my belief that this puts the right into question.
I would argue that it's more applicable now than ever. Only the threat isn't foreign.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/