It should be glaringly apparent, to anyone taking even a passing look, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, and not some "collective right" of the type suggested by the anti-gun, bed-wetting hippies. By all accounts, a majority of the Supreme Court concurs:

Because the current members of the Court had never taken part in a case testing the scope of the right laid out in the Second Amendment, it was not clear, going into the argument, where any of them (with the possible exception of Justices Scalia and Thomas) would stand on the question. But the Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia moved in, in the very earliest stages of the argument, to lay out clear positions %u2014 at least on the collective vs. individual rights dispute.

Within seconds after the defender of the District law, Washington lawyer Walter Dellinger, laid out his general theory that the Amendment only guaranteed a %u201Cmilitia-related%u201D right, the Chief Justice focused on the text of the Amendment and said %u201CIf it is limited to state militias, why would they say %u2018the right of the people. In other words, why wouldn%u2019t they say %u2019state militias have the right to keep arms.%u2019%u201D

During the argument, Chief Justice Roberts asked "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Of course, we could probably have expected that Roberts, along with Scalia, Alito and Thomas, would weigh in on the individual rights view. It takes five votes to get a majority, though, and that's only four. The case could come down, as a number of recent cases have, to the opinion of Justice Kennedy. In this case, there's cause for optimism. During oral argument, Kennedy explained his view as follows: "In my view, (the Second Amendment is) saying there is a general right to bear arms, quite without reference to a militia." Works for me.

Based on everything I've read, it sounds like yesterday was a good day not only for gun owners, but for all Americans who believe in the principles of personal liberty and the right to self-defense.

Follow-up questions:

What standard of review, if any, will the Supreme Court set out?

Given that members of the liberal wing have previously expressed support for the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, is there any chance of unanimity on that point?

How frickin' sweet would that be?