That’s a great question, and maybe deserves an answer from my elected reps ... unfortunately all ‘rats these days.
Mark noted (paraphrase) that the supreme court should not have an answer for every ill and that it was up to the states or the people because this is the only way to insure the greatest freedom with the least intrusion of government into our lives.
The Second Ammendment is a great example where justices go beyond their jurisdiction. It clearly states a right (of the people) that shall not be infringed, yet first, they refuse to recognize this 'right'(by supporting bans), and second, every permit/license/registration/fee, etc. required of a gun owner is an infringement and clearly violates the 2A.
Uninfringed means you walk into a gun store, see a gun you like, buy it, and walk out with it. No different than buying a three-pack of men's briefs uninfringed or bath oils and shampoo, uninfringed.
The Courts correct response to Chicago's ban should be to nullify it and let them know they'll be responsible civilly for any deaths where it could be reasonably shown to have occurred where a handgun or other gun, by it's absence due to their ban, contributed significantly to the likelyhood of death.