http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BARB102OFQ.DTL The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms. How do conservatives come to terms, intellectually and logically, with this? Conservatives, when debating policy issues like abortion and gay marriage (thinking that the general public is against it), would often claim that we should let the public decided. They would say that it is wrong for judges to legislate from the bench. Many would even say that the elected officials need not vote on some issues but let there be a direct vote from the public. Well, unless I dont understand the article, the public did vote on the gun issue. The citizenry decided to restrict gun rights. The courts overturned the will of the people. Id like an explanation, particularly from pro-gun-rights groups. Yes-or-No: did the courts do the right thing by rejecting the voter-approved bad?