Write for the 5 to 4 majority justice Scalia said -

In interpreting this text (2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution), we are guided by the principle that “the Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

A ploy often used by the anti-freedom side of the issue is that the amendment actually means something more technical than what it states. For instance people will often state that the term people in the amendment actually refers to a collective people, or government. The above shows that the SCOTUS recognizes this not to be the case. In other words they have reached the same exact conclusion that the majority of Americans have. The text of the amendment is written in reference to individuals.

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

The high court correctly stated that DC’s regulations regarding handguns was unconstitutional. Why? Because the purpose of a handgun is self defense. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is self defense. The purpose of DC’s sweeping prohibition against the private ownership of handguns was at direct odds with both of those purposes. In fact the District’s position for the past 32 years has been that all guns (handguns, long rifles, etc) have to be completely disabled and totally inoperable at all times unless at a persons place of work.

It’s almost comical when you consider that this whole suit came about because a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. Talk about crapping on your own knees with this one. But then what else can you expect from the government? Had they simply issued the 1 year license to Mr. Heller this case would have never made it to the SCOTUS. Don’t get me wrong, I’m very pleased it did. I just find it a little humorous.

So now that the SCOTUS has reaffirmed that owning firearms is an individual right and NOT a privilege conferred on a few by the government where do we go from here? Well for one the margin of the ruling is something to be concerned about. It could have easily gone either way and it was simply luck that caused it to swing in the right direction. In other words we’re not out of the woods yet in regards to our 2nd Amendment rights. There needs to be an ongoing campaign to get the truth out to the American public. In recent polling (November 2007) the vast majority of respondents held that gun possession is an individual right.

Because people will say that one poll means nothing we can also take a look at an article by CNN in which the majority of those polled express their belief that the 2nd amendment is about individuals and not “the state”.

The problem lies in the fact that the vocal minority often over shouts everyone else which leads people to believe that the majority of people are against a personal right to own guns. Nothing could be further from the truth.

While this ruling is a long time in coming and no doubt a great victory now would be the WRONG time to sit back and rest on our laurels and watch the paint dry. Have no doubt that across the United States people and governments will challenge every word of this historic decision. They will try to find and manipulate every possible loophole. Licensing laws will get far stricter for one.

So my fellow Americans, celebrate. But don’t forget the work has only just begun!