The Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down the ban on gun possession in Washington, D.C. was right on target.
In affirming the right to own and keep a gun for self-defense, the decision was neither an ineffectual BB shot nor a shredding shotgun blast. It was a bullseye.
According to initial studies of the decision by legal scholars on both sides of the gun question, thedecision leaves the door open for further adjudication of local gun ordinances, such as Clyde's ban onconcealed weapons in public places, withoutnecessarily dictating how those cases should fall. Left undetermined by the court's decision in D.C. vs. Heller are such things as where and when one may carry a firearm, openly or concealed. That's left up to state and local law.
But no matter how those individual cases go, the Supreme Court codified something fundamental: A person, or at least a law-abiding person, can have a gun, and need not join a militia --whatever that means these days -- to have one.
You don't have to like guns to recognize this as a good thing.
For one thing, the court ruling appeared to confine itself to the basic framework of the Constitution, leaving the details up to the states and local communities. That's how it's supposed to work in Washington.
For another, the decision dismisses as irrelevant the whole pettifogging argument over what, exactly, is a militia, which has served only to cloud, and not clarify, the gun-control issue.
And for a third -- well, people of all political stripes have been complaining for years we've been sliding into a police state. One thing's certain: No true police state ever wanted its citizens to have guns of their own.