If you’ve listened to the radio or watched TV today, I’m sure you’ve heard about the D.C. v. Heller decision today.  A few comments on the case:

• It’s an extremely narrow decision, which is very wise.  Most significantly, the court recognized that the right to bear arms is indeed an individual right, and the militia part of the amendment does not constrain the right to bear arms.
• Interestingly, the militia clause seems to refer to what types of arms people can hold, who can hold the arms, and what they can do with them.  The court left open the possibility that citizens would have a right to hold advanced weaponry, yet at the same time left open the possibility that the government could have wide power to restrict many types of weapons.
• Practically and from a policy standpoint, this decision is not monumental.  Pro/Con gun studies are not especially convincing.  It’s “if we ban guns, only the outlaws will have guns” against “the more guns around, the more violence.”
• Academically, this is a pretty cool decision.  Especially if you’re interested in the Founder’s intent.
• It’s a really long opinion.

2nd amendment, d.c. v. heller, gun, gun control