Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that America’s citizens have the individual right to own guns.

Since ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791, District of Columbia v. Heller 07-290 was the first time, the Supreme Court has been asked to conclusively interpret the language of the Second Amendment, which reads: “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.”

As a result, Washington DC’s 32-year-old handgun ban is unconstitutional and void.

Gun bans in other cities will likely now be overturned by the court ruling via other cases.

The core issue the justices had to decide — which has been debated for decades between gun control advocates and freedom rights advocates — was whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said “the historical narrative” — both before and after the amendment was adopted — supports an individual’s right to bear arms. And, he noted, “the Constitution does not permit the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”

The court ruling also struck down “Washington’s requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or (be) kept disassembled …”

Scalia was joined in the 5-4 majority by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts and Thomas.

The decision is good news for Americans.

How did the case

get to the USSC?

D.C. resident, Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the district after officials rejected his application to keep a handgun at his Capitol Hill home, located a short distance from the Supreme Court. Five others joined with related issues.

The local District Court denied their claims upholding the D.C. gun ban, saying that the Second Amendment “… does not bestow any rights on individuals except, perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized militia such as today’s National Guard.”

Heller, et al, appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals, essentially, claiming “a right to possess what they describe as ‘functional firearms,’ or ones that could be ‘readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary’ for self-defense in the home.”

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which surprised many people, came down in March 2007. The three-judge panel headed by Senior Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman ruled 2-1 in favor of Heller and the others, striking down the district’s handgun ban, concluding the Constitution guarantees Americans the “right to own guns and a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.”

Appeals Court Judge Karen Henderson was the lone dissent, writing that “the Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it is not a state.”

D.C. officials were adamant about banning guns, so they took the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the rest is now history.

“I’m thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home,” Heller said shortly after the Supreme Court decision was announced.

And, Gallup polls reflect that, while only about one-third of the public owns guns, almost three of every four Americans agree that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms.

Again, that’s the good news for America’s freedom-loving citizens. Now, let’s look at the not-so-good news that is quite troubling.

Naysayers in the Supreme Court minority were Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens.

Justices Breyer and Stevens, writing independently in dissent, get it wrong in our view as both cast aside not only Heller’s rights, but those of all Americans. Let’s look closer at what each wrote.

Breyer said, “In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”

That viewpoint means law-abiding citizens would remain at the mercy of the bandits, thugs and home-invaders that terrorize them, and it would be illegal for folks in that situation to defend themselves with a gun.

Stevens said the (court) majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

Ah, the “government as regulator of civilians” argument delivered with an ample dose of statist elitism by the one of the most il-liberal of the Supremes.

In summary, the four supreme naysayers simply don’t get it.

What they and others — especially big city mayors — should call for is the most severe penalties for all people who use guns when committing crimes.

Here’s an idea for starters: how about imposing on the bad guys: Double the maximum penalty for any crime; all time served sequentially; no parole eligibility; and no sentencing discretion by the presiding judge. And should any crime victim be killed or die as a result of wounds or inflicted harm, mandatory capital punishment for all those involved.

In the meantime, the bad guys will still have guns. But, now, so might the good guys!

Richard Olivastro is a professional member of the National Speakers Association, president of People Dynamics,an executive leadership development company, and founder of Citizens For Change. He can be reached at Rich@Olivastro.net or 877-RichSpeaks.