The U.S. Supreme Court has just struck down Washington D.C.'s ban on handguns, upholding a lower court's decision.

More important than the individual details of District of Columbia vs. Heller is the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment, finding the ownership of firearms is an individual and not a collective right.

There'll be more discussion at Sound Politics about the case when the majority and minority opinions are fully released and digested. (And it looks like we're tripping over each other already with Double-E's post below and Pudge's above).

It will be curious to see how gun control activists react to this latest setback. Ever since their heyday in the early 1990s with the passage of the so-called "assault weapons" ban and the Brady Bill the political pendulum has swung decidedly against the movement.

Americans want the ability to own firearms to protect their family and property. The majority of both Republican and Democratic politicians have conceded the issue.

The fact that gun ownership mentioned in Second Amendment is an individual right is self evident by any reading of the language. This is particularly the case when one understands the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to clearly define and limit the role of the federal government when it came to the citizenry and States.

Now the question is whether local gun ban laws in other American cities will now be declared null and void by fiat with today's SCOTUS ruling. One could argue that a narrow interpretation of the ruling should be followed and that States should be allowed to make their own laws. Washington D.C. is a federal jurisdiction. Since the federal government is not allowed to infringe on the individual's right to keep and bear arms, the decision of D.C. vs. Heller was clear.

But how does this apply, say, to New York? Should States and individual municipalities have the right to craft their own legislation on firearms possession without the meddling of the federal government?

It is shaky at best because for more than 200 years the powers of the States have been suborned to that of the federal government. One might expect gun control activists to suddenly become great state rights supporters and they might even trot out the Tenth Amendment to argue that State and local governments have the authority to limit firearms possession.

Or maybe gun control can finally become one of those historical anachronisms that can finally be shunted to the dusty pages of history to take its place alongside issues like the Silver Standard and Free Soil.

Extra: Incidentally, here in Washington state, the Supreme Court decision is technically an academic discussion. The language in the state constitution is even clearer and stronger, granting its citizens the right to bear firearms than the Second Amendment.

Section 24 Right to Bear Arms. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.