2nd Amendment Victory!

2nd Amendment Victory! Finally there's a Supreme Court decision that I enthusiastically support. I also agree with the decision concerning the death penalty involving the raping of a child, only because the crime does not fit the punishment.

But the decision today supporting gun owners' rights to keep and bear arms was one I can rejoice over. But I should note, while this is a great decision, there were four justices who dissented with the position that the 2nd Amendment isn't an individual right. That is why it is so important that the Constitution be protected by judges who are strict constructionists. This is also a reminder that liberals should not be put into the position to appoint judges.

Breyer, Ginzburg, Souter and Stevens, all liberals, dissented.

The decision was written by Justice Antonin Scalia and it is unambiguous and written in a way that anyone can understand.

WASHINGTON (Associated Press) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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 basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.