Those who believe they already had the Constitutional right to pack heat liked it. Those who believe the sheer number of guns in our midst must be reduced, any way it can be, aren't so happy about the decision. Neither side is going to skip a step in their travails to have it their way.
Whether the decision will have much effect on crime statistics and the number gun-related deaths will play out in the future. What restrictions a city or state can put on the sort of guns and ammo you can possess is still open for debate. But the decision didn't seem to sanction the notion that it's OK for ordinary citizens to carry rocket launchers around with them for self protection, etc.
As far as how far right or left that decision was, I have to say that in my view the majority of Americans probably do think they ought to be able to own an ordinary handgun and keep it in their home. So, in that sense it probably reflects the will of the people in 2008. And, to be practical, I think most people familiar with the actual wording of the Second Amendment had already morphed the right of a "militia" to bear arms into the right of an individual.
Regarding that morphing, it will be interesting to see if the anti-gun forces now accuse the justices of "legislating from the bench." And, will the pro-gun crowd defend the decision by referring to a "living constitution" that must change with the times?
Obviously, in an election year this decision serves to remind us that presidents appoint the justices.
For the disgruntled Republicans and Democrats presently unhappy with their party's presumptive nominee that's something to think about. It's easy to believe that McCain and Obama would not have the same three names at the top of their lists of prospective Supreme Court appointees.
Meanwhile, there are some who are seeing much more in that decision than may be there. For more on that thought ChangeServant, published by an attorney, has some insights that may bring them back to earth.
The First Amendment and the Second Amendment are part of the bill of rights and define the limits of government relative to the citizens. Neither confers an absolute affirmative right on individuals. The government cannot ban speech under the First; the government cannot ban guns under the Second. The government can establish reasonable time, place and manner rules for the exercise of free speech; the government can establish reasonable time, place and manner rules for the use of guns...To read the entire ChangeServant post (it's not very long), click here.