Supreme Court Gun Ruling Knocks Down DC Handgun Law

Supreme Court Gun Ruling Not
As Wide Sweeping As Many Claim

Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court which overturned Washington D.C.‘s near total ban on hand gun possession is being hailed by many and excoriated by others.
Many are overstating the effects of this decision.
The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre and others opposed to gun regulations were ecstatic, and promised many new gun cases across the country.
Now I am no legal scholar but it seems to me the case decided against a specific law and was not a wide ranging opinion. Today’s decision comes down on the side of individual gun ownership but regardless of how it is interpreted, the amendment still allows for regulation and this decision does not change that.

The language in the second amendment has always been troublesome. It says;

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.

Past court rulings have recognized that there no longer is a militia and that fact cast some doubt on the interpretation of the amendment. Some claimed gun ownership would be allowed only in the context of maintaining a militia and thus was invalid. Others claimed the amendment allowed for individual gun ownership.
I would agree that the D.C. law seemed unconstitutional, it was too broad of a reach. I do not think this decision should have any effect on whether or not guns may be subject to regulation.