I got it right

I called my shot about the how the Supreme Court would rule on the Washington D.C. hand gun ban. Of course I got the judgement right but I have no idea about their logic yet. I haven't read the opinion and will try to over the weekend.

Is it me or is it a disturbing trend that the number of rulings that are 5-4? It's obvious the Court has become an ideological battleground. Ideally the Court should be comprised of the most noble, wisest and fairest judges in the land. They should base their decisions on the facts of the case and not their political leanings. Instead the President nominates someone who he and his party believe will tow the company line. If the other party hold the Senate majority, a compromise must be found. Actually that's probably a good thing but chances are the candidate will still lean to the political side of the President.

In any case, I'm glad they upheld the right to bear arms. In reading the D.C. ordinance, it was just ridiculous. I believe in reasonable controls on guns. For example, who really needs to own an assault rifle or grenade launcher? I think it's reasonable for people to own guns for protection as well as hunting rifles. An outright ban did nothing to bring the D.C. crime rate down.

So buy up those guns and enjoy your right to bear arms!