A little bit of 2nd Amendment disingenuousness from the Chicago Tribune, which, once upon a time, had a conservative editorial page. I'm not sure what it is now:
Repeal the wnd Amendment.
No, we don't suppose that's going to happen any time soon. But it should.
The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.
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.
If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn't, and it isn't. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years.
[. . .]
On Tuesday, five members of the court edited the 2nd Amendment. In essence, they said: Scratch the preamble, only 14 words count.
Anyone who bothered to read the court's decision -- Tribune editors obviously did not -- would realize that all nine justices adopted the individual-rights view of the amendment. Yes, all nine - including the four dissenters -- rejected the collective-right view the Tribune editors and so many others still bitterly cling to. I hate to throw one of the liberals' favorite phrases at them, but that debate is over, folks.
And that is a victory for gun-rights advocates in the ruling, but perhaps the only one. Other than that, I'm beginning to think it's a little premature to consider Heller a major reason to celebrate. About the only thing the ruling affirmed as a certainty is the right to have a firearm for self-defense in the home. Anything else is up for grabs, including concealed-carry laws. There's going to be a lot more litigation before the dust settles on this one.
