They got it right on all counts.

Make no mistake -- it is NOT the role of judges to decide whether or not the constitution is relevant. There is a process to change the constitution should the need arise. Until and unless that happens, the role of the High Court is ONLY to judge whether or not laws conform with the unbending precepts set forth. Period. Justices that take it upon themselves to interpret the swayings of modern society miss the entire point of the separation of powers.

Thanks for the link fix, DS

Nonetheless the 2nd amendment isn't clear and will again be subject to interpretation. It specifies quite clearly that the right to keep and bear arms is in the context of "a well regulated militia". Just what "militia" means is certainly open to interpretation, as is the qualifier "well regulated".

I would be surprised if the new interpretation isn't overturned in due course, given the massive problem America has with gun crime (and which sadly is spreading across the world).

Just my opinion as an interested non-American.

Fair note pedro, but the second amendment is only unclear when a historical lens is not used. As a student of American history, militias were bands of individual citizens, pooling their privately owned arms to stand against tyranny. The fledgling United States had just dispensed with an oppressive British crown that forbade citizens from owning arms to try and stave off the revolution. In the context of the bracketing 1st and 3rd amendments, it is clear the intent was to restrict government in favor of ordinary individual citizens. Had the founders meant a well-regulated "military," or "army" they would have said so. Instead, they used a term that denoted the power of the people to organize their resources at will to fight-off a tyrannical government. I have not read a credible historian that has said otherwise. "Well-regulated" is still problematic, but it does not bring question to the very clear desire of the founders to enable individual freedom. The early amendments or "Bill of Rights" empowered individuals, not groups -- and restricted governmental authority. Present-day revisionists try to make a case for a different history, but they're very very wrong.

Otter, concise, cogent and on point as always!! The constitutional amendments contained in the Bill of Rights all pertained to INDIVIDUAL rights , not collective ones. The drafters knew that the colonists would, after their experiences of the previous 20 years, only relate to those liberties for which they had fought, as individuals and representatives of their communities . .there was still no sense of nationhood. That came as a result of the constitutional process that guaranteed those fundamental human dignities (free speech, free expression of faith, the ability to defend oneself against an oppressive regime, among others). It would make no sense to say that all other amendments in the Bill of Rights pertained to individual liberties, except the Second, which is the only one that allows the general populace to be in a position to defend the rest. Maybe naive in this day and age, but, as Otter points out, there is a mechanism in place to change it, if that be the will of the people.

No strong feelings about gun control either way here, but has anyone read today’s opinion? It is a lengthy, tortured examination of each phrase in the Second Amendment with some interesting references to Through The Looking Glass/Alice In Wonderland. I have no real issue with the end result, although the entire opinion drips with sarcasm, which I found unbecoming a body such as our Supreme Court. In that manner, the dissents read much the same.

There is discussion of whether “the right to bear arms” was intended to be a collective or individual right (SC held individual) and whether the only purpose for codification of the right was to ensure a “well-regulated” militia (SC said no). Of interest were the references to the rationale for the Second Amendment in the first place: that there was widespread fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army. The Court noted the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to anyone other than the Federal Government and restricts only infringement of weapon ownership/possession by Congress, thus States are free to restrict or protect the right under their police powers. I believe the Court hasn’t weighed in on the Second Amendment since 1939, when they held its protections refer to individual rights to keep and bear arms, but extend only to certain types of weapons and do not protect “weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Thus the finding that “no rights are intended to be granted by the constitution for an unlawful or unjustifiable purpose.” That finding comports with state’s rights to legislate gun control, although this Court apparently finds state’s rights are limited, inasmuch as they deemed D.C.’s handgun ban unconstitutional because handguns are the American weapon of choice for self-defense at home. That seemed rather a bizarre rationale to me. Heaven forbid AK-47s and Uzis are the next to occupy that position. (The law banning manufacture, import, possession and use of those expired in 2004.)

In terms of what the opinion says about this Court’s view of its job, I was happy to see them reiterate that the task of any court in looking at statutory intent is only an “interpretive task.” They determined that a constitutional guarantee “subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or even future judges think that scope too broad.” I believe interpretation necessarily requires decisions about application to changing circumstances, so I wouldn’t agree that Constitutional precepts are “unbending.” Obviously the founding fathers never contemplated the types of weapons available today. As noted in today’s opinion, initially it was long guns which were deemed most worthy of constitutional protection, today it is handguns. We live in an ever changing world and courts are vested with the duty of determining how constitutional principles apply to circumstances not ever contemplated at the time those principles were drafted.

p.s. Good points Otter and KC - the SC agrees with you both! Otter, they defined “well-regulated” as implying nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

Great commentary from a truly learned professional LA. However, I would disagree that (or perhaps simply clarify what should be meant by)...



This opens the door to courts saying that a construct or amendmendment to the constitution should be thrown out because it is archaic and out-of-date. How dangerous is that!? I would argue that this is exactly what the dissenting opinion prescribed in this case. What is the point of a constitution if not to provide security to a nation governed by laws? If it's out-of-date, change it -- but you cannot say any provision is simply outdated and should be ignored. The founders never ever intended for a court to have such authority.

Now, do circumstances change? Yes! This is why the job of a Justice is difficult. However, the issue of assault rifles versus handguns (fair game) is far different than DC simply banning all handguns (out-of-bounds).

Otter, KCJ and L-A, excellent writing. May it be another 70 years before attemps to "breach", but I doubt it.

Leah-Ann, All Bills of Right apply to individuals.

What do you see as the difference?

I don't believe I said otherwise, but it appears several supreme court justices disagree with you.