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.

I have no idea what the Supreme Court ruling means yet, exactly, because I am waiting for the legal scholars to explain it all to me. Apparently, they want to read the opinion first. And the television talking heads are saying it is not a good idea to run right out and buy a gun before we find out what the new law will look like. So instead, a couple of associated thoughts:

1) At least one good thing has come out of the Bush presidency. Let's hope this blow for individual rights outlasts the executive power grab. I think the Bush administration genuinely believes that the executive should have more power. I also think they're desperately, hopelessly wrong. But of course, since I think all government officials should have rather less power, I would say that, wouldn't I?

2) It's a little sobering to reflect what this decision might have looked like if Michael Bellesiles' work hadn't been so humiliatingly and thoroughly unmasked as a fraud. As it is, the dissenters apparently argue that this is overweening judicial activism, even though everything I know and have read about the crafting of the amendment makes a collective right interpretation pretty untenable.

3) The lack of a court ruling on the question of an individual right to bear arms has been a gaping hole in American constitutional jurisprudence for too long. Thankfully, it's settled. Double thankfully, it's correctly settled.

4) There is a distressing lack of attention to the female market in gun companies. I want something with accuracy and stopping power, but also, an attractive exterior casing that easily integrates with my other accessories. This doesn't seem unreasonable.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.