Although I don't have any handguns or rifles in my own home, the right of the individual to own such weapons has always been thought to be a right under the Constitution wherein it states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  

On Thursday, the 26th of June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gun ownership by individuals who want such weapons for protection.  This decision marked the first time that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the individual's right to own guns, not just the right of the states to maintain militias.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his writing of the 5-4 decision, stated that the Constitution does not have the right of "Absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."  Furthermore, Scalia stated that the nation's capital went too far in controlling the sale of handguns to the point that they made it almost impossible for an individual to possess a handgun for their own protection.

However, the Supreme court warned that the individual's right to possess a handgun for the "traditional lawful purpose" of protection in the home is not unlimited.  "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Justice Scalia stated.

This landmark ruling of the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's 1976 law, which made it practically impossible for an individual who resides within the District to own a handgun, and even spelled out how weapons that were legally owned should be stored.

What do you think of this recent ruling by the Supreme Court?  Do you think that American's have a right under the Second Amendment of the Constitution to own handguns, shotguns, and like weapons and store them in their homes for their own protection?  What about the criminal element?

---Posted by Dan Calloway