The Supremes have spoken. By a 5-4 decision, they have struck down provisions of DC law that were inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Nino Scalia's majority opinion is masterful, as always. His takedown of Justice Stevens' dissent is excruciatingly complete.
So, you may be asking, why does it sound as though I am happy with the decision, even though I just blogged my opposition to the Second Amendment? Easy. Because the Second Amendment exists as the law of the land. No amount of my wishing that it were otherwise makes it so. The Supreme Court today did what it is supposed to do; interpret the Constitution, not make its own law. Scalia's opinion is a wonderful lesson in history and linguistics. Words matter, and the words chosen for this Amendment mattered. If the people were do do as I prescribe and amend the Second Amendment, Scalia would be the first to say that the DC law was not unconstitutional. As it currently stands, the DC law IS unconstitutional.
The system works, ladies and gentlemen. If we want to change the Constitution, there are methods of doing so (see Article V, US Constitution). Pronouncements from the bench are not among these methods.