During my military service and employment with security firms, firearms have played a significant role. I am also a hunter and target shooter. Guns are not a mystery to me, nor do they disturb me, unless they are pointed at me in a threatening fashion and I find that highly irritating.

Subsequently, I followed the recent Supreme Court deliberations over the challenge to the D.C. gun-ban law with great interest. My reaction to the decision was relief that the right of Americans to personal protection had finally been upheld at the highest level.

It appears to me that this decision was the result of a "strict constructionist" approach and that made the results even more interesting since the split vote placed "Swing Voter" Justice Kennedy with the majority.

I just finished reading an editorial that attempted to use the Second Amendment decision to bolster the concept that the Constitution is a "living document" that must be modified to reflect the "changing moral landscape of today". That, by the way, was one of the terms used in the majority opinion (written by Justice Souter) to justify another Supreme Court decision to overturn a death penalty imposed upon a convicted child rapist by a Louisiana Court ( again, the majority decision was supported by Justice Kennedy). Somehow allying "strict constructionist" and "progressive" interpretations of the Constitution just don’t add up for me.

But what does work for me is the concept that law abiding citizens must be allowed to defend themselves and their families. Unfortunately, our law enforcement systems are designed for the investigation of a crime and the apprehension of a supposed perpetrator. Unless a victim is lucky enough to have a law enforcement professional available at the onset, the police offer little or no protection from a determined criminal.

Is society in general now in danger because of this decision ? No. If you are a convicted felon, are under the scope of a protection from abuse decree, are mentally unstable or are disqualified under numerous other limitations, then current law prevents you from possessing a gun. Both common sense and state law require a background investigation and waiting period before a purchase of a firearm can be completed. I have held a Permit to Carry Concealed Firearms for years and that is not an easy document to obtain, either.

I firmly believe that anyone who owns a firearm should be thoroughly schooled not only in safety requirements but also in the laws and regulations surrounding its use (hunting regulations, for example). Of course this does not always happen. The National Rifle Association and many other national and local organizations (Boy Scouts, gun clubs, professional trainers, etc.) are sources for this needed training.

It is a good thing that this Supreme Court decision finally addresses a specific right contained in the Constitution in a manner that defines individual rights without denying individual states their regulatory role.

E-mail this entry to a friend