The logic of the 2nd Amendment decision by Supreme Court

 Washington Examiner:

...

The high court’s ruling declares this a violation of the Second Amendment and the 14th Amendment — a violation, given that these amendments establish a right to keep and bear (read: outside the home) arms in self-defense. New York’s subjective, restrictive system treated self-defense as a privilege, not a right, so the justices struck it down.

"We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. "That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense."
...

While our constitutional republic is meant to give the people the ultimate power over our government, the Bill of Rights specifically serves to constrain the will of the majority when it comes to individual rights. The idea was that some things are off-limits, even if 51% of the population would vote to restrict them. Pure, absolute democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority. At different points in our history, things such as slavery, segregation, denying women the vote, speech bans, and more would have garnered majority support among voters. That’s why we added amendments to take these egregious injustices off the table.

In the same way, the right to defend your life is an inherent human right, one that the Second Amendment simply recognizes. And the very point of the Bill of Rights is that such rights aren’t supposed to be up for debate at the federal or local level.
...

I suspect the Democrats will have to get a constitutional amendment to override these rights. That will be a big task.