On June 26th, the United States Supreme Court recognized that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, a decision that I agree with. What is disappointing is that it was a narrow 5-4 decision. I hate 5-4 decisions.

Some people confuse the questions of "What does the 2nd Amendment mean?" and "Is the 2nd Amendment still meaningful and applicable?". These are two very distinctly different topics and the Supreme Court is really only there to address the former. The latter is simply out of their scope and as a part of the Constitution, has a well-established procedure for changing.

There are cries of judicial activism any time a court makes a decision anyone anywhere disagrees with and this time is no different. It's at the point where the phrase has no meaning. To mean, it's always indicated a situation where a judge voids a law not because it violates protected rights, but simply because he/she disagrees with it. This is of course not the purpose of the courts, yet it happens and there's frequently nothing to be done about it (McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform comes to mind). In this case, we have the case striking down a law based on clear constitutional grounds and so the accusations of judicial activism ring quite hollow.

I have yet to read the entire decision and I'm curious to read the dissenting opinions. I have seen that the majority opinion mentions US v Miller to some detail and denies the gun control interpretation of that decision. Miller has always been abused by those looking for any excuse to curtail gun rights, despite that decision's very narrow scope and unusual circumstances. Hopefully this will put an end to that.