From the New York Times:

Published: June 27, 2008

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court on Thursday embraced the long-disputed view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for personal use, ruling 5 to 4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.

Back in March, following oral arguments, we discussed the case here.

While the fairly extensive coverage of the issue is worth the reread, I am a bit reluctant to redirect your attention to this post as I made an embarrassing mistake in my discussion of federalism, not noting nor taking into account that the District of Columbia is not even a quasi-sovereign entity---but a fully subordinate federally controlled territory. Tocqueville corrected my error.

Worth special note, however, is


My prediction is that the Court will recognize a full-bodied individual right to gun ownership under the 2nd Amendment (This is why we care. The Court will be deciding what the 2nd Amendment means, and the 2nd Amendment means the same thing in and out of D.C.). But I predict that the Court will strike down the D.C. statute as unconstitutional on very narrow grounds. In short, I expect the Court to find that an outright ban on gun ownership is patently unconstitutional. But the Court will leave plenty of room for the regulation and control of gun ownership for health and safety reasons. And this right to regulate may likely be broader for the states than it is for the federal government.

Good work, Tocqueville. Just another example of why all good men (and women) should read our blog regularly.