If you haven't heard, the Supreme Court has weighed in on your right to own and keep a gun. This will be known as the Heller Decision.
If you disagree with this decision there are two ways of going about changing the law as it stands today.
One is through the amendment process. Since we live in a representative democracy--read republic--this is the preferred way of changing the law. There is no limit on what may or may not be changed through the amendment process. You want to change law in order to take over the oil companies without paying them compensation for the act? Simply change the Constitution. Want to outlaw guns? Simply change the Constitution.
There is another way of changing the law as it stands today. This was the method used in the Kennedy Decision. Judges decided to replace law with their own opinions of what law should or shouldn't be. As the writer in the link notes:
"If there is such a large degree of ambiguity as to whether the Eighth Amendment applies in these cases, then it would appear that the Tenth Amendment should take precedence. The Supreme Court should allow Texas and other states to prosecute crimes within their jurisdiction as the state, rather than the Supreme Court, sees fit."
But the writer is clearly one of those guys who think that the law should be read with the clear meaning and intent of the words in mind. If the Constitution is silent, so should be the Court. When Leftists talk about judicial activism, they are talking about a return to the plain meaning of words being used to overturn decisions, that are, in their view, "important". When conservatives talk about judicial activism, they are refering to the type of legal thinking found in the Kennedy Decision. Since there are no words in the law, or through previous decisions--called stare decisis--they simply replace their own judgement for the judgement of legislators.
When conservatives refer to judicial activism it is a reference to judges replacing law with their own opinions of "what is right". When Leftists talk about judicial activism, it is a reference to judges refusing to replace their ideas of right or wrong for the product of legislatures.
And that is why the fundamental right to keep and bear arms has been upheld. It is a Constitutional Right.
Now, we hope they can fix McCain-Feingold.