Individual right to bear arms safe, for the time being

It's easy to see why a handgun ban is attractive in a big city. Police would like to think that there are fewer lethal weapons pointed that way, and citizens hope that they can make it to work and back without being robbed at gunpoint.

So it's not surprising the Supreme Court had a close vote Thursday on whether the Second Amendment's wording of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applied to individuals, not just a "well-regulated militia."

The justices, after all, live in Washington, D.C., which has one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation and where the case originated.

We're grateful the 5-4 vote came down the way it did, with no further erosion of personal rights. We are, after all, talking about the right of law-abiding citizens to own a lethal weapon. They should not be penalized just because others choose to use the weapons to break the law.

While handguns may actually offer false security, the traditional interpretation of the Constitution should not be trashed just because its privileges may be abused.

That doesn't mean gun owners are relieved of their responsibility to may sure guns are locked away safely, out of the reach of children or the mentally unstable.

We tend to think the possible presence of a handgun can be a civilizing force -- people tend to be polite in places like Israel or parts Texas, where guns are as common as cell phones.

So the right for individuals to own guns seems to be safe for now -- at least until the next election.

The type of justice the next president is likely to appoint should be high on the list of consideration for voters in November.