The 2nd Amendment is definitely something worth thinking about. I've never owned a gun, but my strong feeling as time goes by is that, if and when I ever do acquire one, I would attempt to get one through "informal" channels. Having to register something that I have the right to own seems to me like having to register my religion or my position on sustainable development.
My understanding of the Bill of Rights is that it carves out individual and states' rights and their associated areas of the law that the federal government may not touch. The words "the people", however one capitalizes them, refer to people as individuals in every Amendment in the Bill of Rights where the term appears.
Attempting to limit "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to ownership only insofar as "the people" are members of a militia is very odd. Since the grammar assumes such huge importance in court cases, I will say that the 2nd Amendment, to these eyes, is a list of two independent clauses:
1) A State's right to form a "well-regulated militia"
2) an individual's right to keep and bear arms (see above re "the People")
Grammatically, the 2nd Amendment is confusing to some people because there's no "and" in there after "of a free State,". But the people that wrote the Bill of Rights understood basic grammar and the proper use of commas; and, as everyone knows, a "comma must be used when 'and' is omitted," and, further, "In a series of independent clauses, the comma is not omitted before the final element." ("Practical English Handbook" by Watkins, Dillingham, and Hiers, 13th edition, 2001, pg. 205)
Now today comes the Supreme Court's decision. The first article I read about the decision was a Reuters piece: http://tinyurl.com/5qzoyz
I was moved to scoff at the interesting slant in the article. This sentence provides a double whammy (emphasis mine):
"Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter."
"Now"...as in there never was an individual right before today. And "a hunter", implying that Scalia should have recused himself because he wasn't impartial.
Then there's this:
"The four liberal dissenting justices warned of the ruling's consequences. 'The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States,' Justice Stephen Breyer said."
Oh, my goodness! We wouldn't want any laws challenged or repealed, oh, no no no! What kind of message would that send?
And then the obligatory:
"It drew fire from gun control groups, which warned of new legal attacks on existing gun laws, and some Democrats in Congress like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who said the decision 'opens this nation to a dramatic lack of safety.' "
What is she talking about?! She must believe that it'll be the wild west all of a sudden. Why would people get all exercised about this? I mean, with strict gun control -- which operates to tie the hands of law-abiding citizens far more than criminals -- comes greater vulnerability to violent crime, since criminals have no scruples about owning guns, legally obtained or not.
I'm happy about the ruling, too. And, in an appropriate piece of theatre, the Court announced this barn-burner of an opinion on the final day of the current session.