As a handgun owner, I was surprised when I heard today that the Supreme Court upheld individual gun rights by only a 5-4 margin. I believe it should have been an unanimous decision. This causes concern for the future of gun rights in this country. All it would have taken was one justice to have sided with the pro-ban crowd for a dire situation to have occurred.
Even though the NRA is celebrating tonight, I was scared by the result. What does it say when four justices are so out of touch with the American people, the platform of both major parties, both major presidential candidates, the sitting president and a majority of state governments? This shows just how liberal some of the justices are.
I believe this makes the next election even more important because one more liberal and the outcome likely would have been different. Even though Barack Obama supports the individual right of a person to bear arms, he is more likely to appoint someone who would have sided with the dissenters in this case. That scars me.
While I understand some of the claims by the anti-gun crowd, I believe the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted with a strict bias toward individual rights. When there is every a clear reason to debate or a question about the original intentions of the framers, decisions should favor the rights of the individual over government restrictions. The problem is once we give away individual rights; they are generally gone for good. It is hard to ever get rights back because that would require government leaders to relinquish some power.
What do you think? Does the Constitution only give the right to bear arms as part of a militia? Or is this an individual right? Read the decisions at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf