Shoot.

In a landmark 5-4 decision, The SCOTUS took its first step in interpreting the 2nd Amendment issuing a ruling that's sure to be hotly contested over the "next" 200+ years.

(from Mark Sherman of the AP via the Chron)

The Supreme Court ruled today 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.

Lest we forget...

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.

As 5-4 decisions are wont to do, this one has stirred up a hornet's nest of debate, wailing and gnashing of teeth, and joyus applause. It's also crystallized, on both sides of the political spectrum, the importance of winning the Presidential election, as well as having a strong majority in the Senate to steer Supreme Court Justice nominations in what is often viewed to be the "proper" direction.

As a practical matter gun bans are ridiculous on their face. As one blogger against the decision so eloquently phrased it: "Great! Every time I’m in DC, the first thing I think is, “What this place really needs is more guns." What the blogger doesn't realize his is admitting is that there are already guns in Washington D.C. despite the Nation's most restrictive gun ban (now null and void per the Supreme Court).

It's just that, in D.C. only the criminals posessed guns, now the citizens will have the right to own one themselves.

This is perhaps my favorite quote of the day:

(from Adam B of Daily Kos)

I encourage you to read this fully before rendering your opinions, because, well, it's a Constitution we're expounding here, and this comes up in other contexts as well. Sometimes in life (and in law), there are things that we might desire from a policy standpoint -- like certain forms of gun control, or restrictions on some election-related speech -- which are nevertheless forbidden by the Constitution. And as liberals -- unlike the other guys -- we ought not try to pretend that the Constitution doesn't exist when it gets in the way of our policy preferences.

Ignore for a minute the silly partisan suggestion that the "other guys" flippantly throw away the Constitution and liberals are blessed by the angels and don't. The important bit is that the Constitution exists regardless of our feelings about it. It's job is to reign us in as a Nation from going off the deep end of the Cult of Personality.

Besides, in a party populated by Trial Lawyers you'd think there'd be some joy in seeing a 5-4 decision passed down by the SCOTUS on an issue that's sure to be a lucrative revenue stream for decades to come.

Aside: Is anyone else but me concerned that the bulk of the dissenting Justices arguments centered around the theory that there is no right to self defense inherent in the Constitution?