Justice Sidney W. Wernick’s decision upholding Portland’s ban on firearms possession and display in public housing units is a clear if temporary victory for that city’s law enforcement officials, tenants and municipal officials who believe that the 18-year-old policy has kept a lid on the level of violence.

The projects, as Justice Wernick points out, are incubators for criminal activity and mayhem “that specially threaten the health, safety and welfare of residents.” He ruled that the municipal policy isn’t in absolute conflict with state and federal constitutional rights to gun ownership and possession because tenants can keep and bear arms off premises.

The National Rifle Association disagrees with the justice’s conclusion, but if it pursues an appeal, it must accept the risk of further setbacks.

Justice Wernick’s verdict rides the current of events in America, where episodes of gun-related violence have provoked an unprecedented national reaction. Many citizens see a direct relationship between the proliferation and accessibility of firearms and the incidence of death and injury inflicted by a range of weapons, from handguns to semi-automatic rifles.

Although there is no indication that Justice Wernick’s decision was rendered on anything but a strict, legal interpretation of the Portland policy, jurists are part of the society in which they live. This society is fed up with firearms bloodshed and, despite a run on guns in some urban combat zones, appears to reject the notion that the best answer to violence is to turn America into an armed camp.

The “Death Clock” in New York’s Times Square that on Jan. 1 began counting firearms fatalities, the Brady bill, the Portland prohibition, similar bans in other cities and states, and programs to purchase privately owned guns or exchange them for toys, all are responses to fear of firearms violence and are symptoms of a national inadequacy to deal with the problem comprehensively.

Under the circumstances, and they are ugly, if the NRA persists in trying to overturn the Wernick decision, it may not only have the decision tossed back in its face, there also is the possibility of an unfavorable interpretation of the Second Amendment, the hinge on which most anti-gun-control arguments ultimately swing.

The NRA and supporters of the plaintiff’s right to keep and bear arms may feel confident that they have both the Maine and U.S. Constitution on their side, but if they have a choice, this is a poor time to put that conviction to the test.