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 Second Amendment

I'm sure quite a bit will be written concerning the landmark Second Amendment decision made by SCOTUS. It's been a long time coming and either way the axe fell, scores of people were guaranteed to be outraged. With so many facets to the discussion, there are many ways to approach it. Like a mother checking her  son for lice, some readers have already been over the court's opinions with a fine comb. Those documents may be scintillating reading, but I prefer the outside in approach. That's where I codify my opinions and then read what the justices have to say. Now that they have finally spoken, it's time to offer my views.

My first thoughts regard how the Constitution should be interpreted. Entire libraries could be filled with the philosophical debates over this one issue. Should the hallowed words be construed strictly, and in their narrowest sense? Or is there room for, no, wait... Do the fluidity and constantly evolving nature of humanity demand that we balance the Constitution's intent against 21st Century developments? I favor the latter reasoning. When we outgrow starter homes we either add on or move. So it should be with the Constitution. Failure to adapt turns a living, breathing document into an ornate scrap of wallpaper. Even the fact that Jefferson et al couldn't foresee the escalation of technology and sheer volume of weapons has been accounted for by laws that govern all aspects of gun ownership.

So how do I reconcile the specific "well regulated militia" wording in the Second Amendment? Many anti-gun advocates end their analysis with this phrase. My first approach is to consider the paragraph in its entirety. Militias were a necessity during the nascent days of the Constitution. For (hopefully) different reasons, they have their place in today's America. However, look closely at the following sentence, especially these eight words: right of the people to keep and bear.

Two things are immediately clear to me in that terse sentence. The first is the use of the word "people". It's very broad in scope. For those of you who feel the founders wrote exactly what they meant, why do you think they didn't explicitly narrow the language? Perhaps the right of the constabulary or the right of the militia should not be infringed. The other thing worth noting is the use of the word "bear". Not only are we allowed guns, but we have the right to use them. And the only way you can bear a weapon is to have physical possession of it. That doesn't mean it's sequestered in a sporting club locker miles away, but securely about your person or within close proximity.

In the 18th Century, guns were more that a fact of life. Guns were life. They were how you fed your family and protected them from dangers, domestic and literally foreign. The notion that an 18th Century Congress would pass a law that could be construed as negating the right to possess a gun is beyond fathomable.

Finally, in over 200 years since the Second Amendment's ratification, no movement, no law, no petition or treaty has managed to strip guns from their owners. Does that make the court's decision good by default? It took centuries to end slavery too. Although I'd argue that owning a human and owning a gun don't have the same moral equivalency.

No, the court's decision is good because it protects a right that the Constitution's framers held inviolate. But it does so while allowing checks on that right, checks that protect the greater public. Checks that take into consideration we no longer live in the Wild West.

In short, the ruling restores some of the balance of power to the people. And coming from this group of judges, we need all of that we can get.