Bask in the glory of a rational SCOTUS decision

Read it and weep, gungrabbers!

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved...

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home...

If you want to read the entire 157-page majority opinion written by Antonin Scalia, then click here.

The Supreme Court of the United States finally called on right. In a 5-4 vote, the Court found in District of Columbia, et. al. vs. Heller that the ban on handguns in Washington D.C. violates a person's God-given right to defend himself as guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. The vote among the members of the Court went as you would expect:

In the Majority: Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Sam Alito, and Anthony Kennedy.

Dissenting: John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer

This decision of the Court doesn't mean that any swingin' moron can go out there with a gun; no right isn't absolute - yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is a common example. However, this is a huge victory for those of us who believe that stopping law-abiding citizens from arming themselves only emboldens criminals and makes our society even more violent.

Although I hold little respect for George W. Bush, I will give him props on one thing. Neal Boortz (see blogroll) said it best:

Here's something else you may want to ponder as the uproar over this ruling spreads. (Oh, those poor Brady people). Without the appointments made to the Supreme Court by George W. Bush, this [decision] probably would have been completely different. With Al Gore in the presidency your right to own a gun for self-defense would have been ripped away today.

It is a great day in this country!

Good Day to You, Sir