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.
