Amendment 2 - Right To Bear Arms : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Supreme Court overturned a virtual total ban on hand guns and any other arms in the District of Columbia. The law that was stricken out held that the Second Amendment was meant to give militias (that is, the US Military and other government para-military entities like local police) the right to bear arms, not to individuals in and of themselves.

Yet in a 5-4 decision led by Antonin Scalia, the court argued that the law infringed on individuals rights to bear arms, not necessarily on localities rights to impose restrictions on the handling of said arms. SCOTUSBlog has a great recap and analysis of the decision [PDF document] :

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington's strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one's home, and a requirement that any gun -- except one kept at a business -- must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed. It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violation of denying any access to a handgun.

While the declaration of the individual right was clear-cut, as was the decision's nullification of key parts of the Washington, D.C., law, the Court did not lay down a standard for judging the constitutionality of any other federal laws -- an omission that the dissenters attacked strongly. Even so, the opinion made it clear that, whatever ultimate test emerge, it probably would be a tough one to meet, at least when self-defense is at issue. As Justice Scalia put it, whatever remains for "future evaluation" about the strength of the right, "it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

Right wing commentators are already branding this decision the "Roe v. Wade of Gun Rights". And just as many people suspected, the National Rifle Association has not wasted time in putting money behind court challenges to local gun bans in cities like San Francisco, Chicago. They are considering New York City next.

Believe it or not, I think this ruling is good if only because it upholds the US Constitution as a document upholding the rights of individuals, not just government bodies.

As a rabid supporter of a woman's right to not be treated as chattel, property or a slave for the sole purpose of a man's reproductive needs, I believe that DC v. Heller is in a way going to reinforce the rights of Woman as an Individual and a Citizen.

Yet as much as I identify with Libertarian causes, I am first and foremost a social libertarian, someone who believe that government is indeed needed to protect and enhance the rights of individuals. So as much as I believe in the constitutionality of an individual's right to bear a gun, I also believe municipalities and states have the right to set under which circumstances people can bear those arms --as long as they don't infringe on an individual's right to have a gun at home for protection. I also believe that this interpretation is only restricted to gun, not semi- or automatic weapons like AK-47s or any other kind of machine gun.

So, as much as I hate the NRA for their loathsome lobbying practices, I do believe this ruling was necessary.