Oddly, I Agree...

...at least in part:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun control in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms restrictions intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

I have often said that if people want to make it clear that weapon ownership is only tied to militia service, then Amendment II needs amending. 

As I see it, guns are an individual right based on the amendment's admittedly unclear/ambiguous/opaque wording, historical context, and considering that no amendment other than XVIII has ever offered a prohibition or even limit to individual rights.  If you think the Constitution offers a protection of, say...privacy, or the right for a woman to control her own body based on IX and X and penumbra and whatnot, then you must admit that unless explicitly stated, there is no preventing individuals from owning firearms Constitutionally.

That said, certainly there are always limits on rights in a free society.  We cannot, for example, libel people under the guise of free speech, or yell 'theater!' in a crowded fire.  Similarly, the government does have powers--indeed responsibilities--to balance those rights with others when they come into conflict.  So requiring licensing isn't necessarily an onerous burden on the individual's right to bear arms.  I would think probably requiring trigger locks wouldn't be, either, but whatever.

ntodd

[Update: speaking of narrow interpretations, here's something I wrote during a debate on extending the assault gun ban:

[W]e are not debating gun ownership. We are debating assault weapon ownership, and once again the Senate has followed the will of the majority of Americans in imposing a reasonable restriction for the good of society.

Different context, but to people who say the SCOTUS has given us the right to own rocket launchers, tanks, or nukes: no, today's ruling was about handguns.  Going back to Marbury, which involved a very specific and narrow ruling, today is the same.  The Court does not paint with a broad brush.]