The Supreme Court today ruled on the Heller case. (Key quotes here.)
The Court reaffirmed that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual, not a collective right, and has been pointed out, the textual basis for this is as close to metaphysical certainty as words will allow. In doing so, it struck down bans on handguns, and made it clear that individuals may have access to these weapons in their homes for personal defense. To that extent, this was an important win for the human right of self-defense, even if the immediate effects will be minimal. (Why that right ends at your front door is another question, but let's be grateful for small favors.)
Here's what my friend Dave Kopel had to say about it:
The Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Second Amendment, and striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and the ban on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home, is solidly reasoned. Although the case leaves ample room for moderate gun control laws, the case casts doubt on the continuing validity of a variety of other gun prohibitions.
I'm much less sanguine than he is about the inevitable regulator rulings. The Kennedy case earlier this week showed that, in the words of Mark Levin, the Court sees itself sitting as an ongoing Constitutional Convention (a notion first popularized by Woodrow Wilson). We will find it making case-by-case judgments about the wisdom of this restriction or that. My guess is that the majority got as broad protection as it could in this case, and that we're liable to see Justice Kennedy supporting all sorts of regulations that have the potential to do for gun rights what McCain-Feingold did for political speech.
