On Thursday, June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own a gun. A 5-4 majority found that a District of Columbia gun-control law was unconstitutional. The District of Columbia’s gun law, in effect since 1976, was one of the nation’s strictest. Trigger locks were required for storage of rifles and shotguns, thus rendering the weapons useless for self-defense. However, a more relaxed gun control policy is not unlimited. Self-defense is supported, but carrying a gun for any purpose is not. Felon and the mentally ill gun control will still be strictly regulated, as will gun laws in school or government buildings.

Thursday’s ruling was the first to address the “right to bear arms” of the Second Amendment since 1939. That year, the court ruled that the amendment did not protect the right to possess a specific type of firearm, such as the sawed-off shotgun in question. The 1939 ruling was also the first to directly interpret the meaning of the amendment text.

This year, the concept of militia was called into question. The use of handguns by individuals versus affiliation with state-regulated militia is the true gun control debate: When does the individual’s right to carry a gun submit to state regulation? As one of the only Supreme Court gun control developments in the last century, it holds enormous precedence for the executive, legislative, and judicial aspects of American government. Lawmakers nationwide will use the decision to write new legislation in areas with too much or too little regulation, while the National Rifle Association (N.R.A.) threatens lawsuits against the San Francisco and Chicago areas to challenge dissatisfying restrictions. Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain of Arizona clearly supports the overturn of the District of Columbia ban. Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama of Illinois did not support the overturn. The District of Columbia law was overturned, but the future of gun laws remains uncertain. The Second Amendment continues to call policy into question on a politically divisive level throughout the country.

-Alexandra Bregman