Newton County Sheriff Ken Copeland said he thinks the Supreme Court made the correct decision.

“I’ve always been for citizens to keep and bear arms,” Copeland said. He said the Missouri law allowing concealed handguns hasn’t resulted in a single negative incident.

“The crooks and thieves get guns anyway,” he said. “I think it’s certainly the right of the good people who follow the laws to protect themselves.”

Randomly asked by the Globe for her opinion was Tracie Hudson, formerly of Goodman and now of Waynesboro, Pa., a few hours from Washington, D.C. Hudson, who was at Northpark Mall on Thursday, said she agrees with the Supreme Court decision, but she doesn’t think it’s a black-and-white issue.

“I am kind of in the middle, because a family that feels they need protection, they should be allowed to own a gun, something small and simple,” Hudson said. “But I am against having, like, a lot of guns and things that are fully automatic. That I would be against. So I wouldn’t want to ban guns, but they definitely need restrictions on them.”

Hudson said she owns a .22-caliber pistol that she bought for self-protection when she lived in Goodman. She said it makes her feel safer.

The ruling is not being praised universally.

“This is an instance of right-wing judicial activism,” said Paul Zagorski, a political science professor at Pittsburg (Kan.) State University. “The court isn’t supposed to make policy. They’re supposed to interpret the law and the Constitution.”

He said the court disregarded the opening clause of the Second Amendment, which reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”

“If it had no meaning, the framers could have put in any other clause,” Zagorski said. “The detachment of the first clause and the second clause seems strained. It creates a strange way to read the amendment.”

He said that by allowing continued regulation, the court also disregarded the second clause, which reads: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

“I also think the court has read the Second Amendment in a way that is historically illiterate,” Zagorski said. “It pays very little attention to the reason for the Second Amendment in the first place. The militia was a big issue.”

He said the conservatives on the Supreme Court, who claim to be strict constructionists about the Constitution, are having it both ways by following that until the Constitution is in opposition to conservative principles.

Zagorski was asked how the Supreme Court managed to avoid ruling on the issue for more than 200 years.

“They’ve found a way, I think, to allow the local and state courts to do what they want without trying to weigh in on a fundamental issue,” Zagorski said. “That’s often what courts will try to do.”