The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling, which upholds an individual’s right to bear arms, is being called ” a clear victory for gun advocates.”

U.S. News & World Report said, “In a 5-to-4 decision, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, held for the first time that the Constitution provides an individual right to bear arms, such as for self-defense, rather than a right that applies only to a state militia.”

The decision upheld an appellate court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.’s 1976 handgun ban. The case marked the first time in more than 70 years that the Supreme Court had addressed the Second Amendment and the first time it spoke directly about the implication of an individual right.

For sportsmen, and especially those of us who support the NRA and appreciate the uttter precariousness of our gun rights in this country, there is reason to celebrate, but don’t gloat. Let’s face it, our Second Amendment prerogatives survived the Supreme Court gantlet by the narrowest of margins: We prevailed by just one vote. That’s right, we squeaked by in a 5-to-4 decision.

This is cause for sobriety for a couple of reasons. First, it came too close to going the other way. According to U.S. News & World Report, “The court’s liberal minority, led by Justice John Paul Stevens, held the opposite: namely that the amendment guaranteed only a collective right for a militia. “There is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution. Indeed, Justice Stephen Breyer warned that the ruling jeopardized other gun laws. “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.”

The second reason for a short celebration is just this: The Second Amendment has always been clearcut. It means what it says. It should never have been subjected to the high court gauntlet in the first place! It got to that judicial precipice because of unrelenting liberal activisim that has grossly distorted other facets of our society that should be subject to Constitutional protection.

The national gun debate is far from over. There will now be, as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, legal challenges to gun bans in other cities across the country. Presidential politics will not be spared this issue, either. And speaking of presidential politics, voting sportsmen who value their gun rights might consider this: U.S. Presidents appoint justices to the U.S Supreme Court. In fact, of all the duties of a sitting President, selecting these High Court justices looms as the most far-reaching and historical decision our new Presidents make. Remember, too, that conservative Presidents select conservative judges, who stand by our Constitution, and activist liberal Presidents select liberal judges, who often try to rewrite the Constitution.

Justice Paul Stevens, a liberal judge who was not selected by a conservative President, would have struck down your individual right to bear arms. The odds are high that our next President will select a Supreme Court Justice whose judicial philosophy could alter the outcome of any future Second Amendment rulings.

Food for thought, sportsmen and sportswomen.

V. Paul Reynolds is editor of the Northwoods Sporting Journal. He is also a Maine Guide, host of a weekly radio program “Maine Outdoors” Sundays at 7 p.m. on The Voice of Maine News-Talk Network (WVOM-FM 103.9, WCME-FM 96.7) and former information officer for the Maine Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. His e-mail address is [email protected].