A couple decades ago, D.C. passed a law making private ownership of all handguns in D.C. illegal (except for those owned prior to the law, they were grandfathered in). Private citizens can still own rifles and shotguns, but they must either be taken apart, locked in a safe, or have trigger locks on them, even when stored at home. A guy in D.C., a security guard who carries a handgun as part of his job, wished to bring his duty weapon home with him. He sued the city, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. He sued on the basis of the Second Amendment which says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Throughout the history of the debate, two lines of thought have been prevalent:

1. The right to bear arms is meant for official state militias, not the people in general.
2. The right applies to all people, from which militias are drawn in times of need.

One of the most interesting questions I heard posed today (don't remember which Justice) was... If the Second Amendment was meant to apply only to state militias, why didn't they say, "...the right of state militias to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?"

Mike,

You don't get to be on the Supreme Court if you are an idiot. Most of them are pretty bright individuals. I was wondering why they chose to listen to a case from D.C., since a lot of the laws and rights granted to citizens of states do not apply to D.C. residents. (They don't have the same voting rights, Congress has the authority make separate laws, and to run the city, etc.) Why would they choose a D.C. case? I think they did it so they have two options. They have some wiggle room, if they want wiggle room, or they can make a "By God, this is the way it's going to be from now on" decision.

The wiggle room is: The court is not going to determine whether it is a militia or individual right, because, in D.C., Congress has the authority to restrict rights that may, or may not, apply to citizens of the states. Therefore, we uphold the D.C. gun ban, without extending the same right to other cities, or the states, or the Federal Government. They may, or may not have the right to institute bans, but we are not going to rule on that issue, since this is a D.C. case.

Or, they could have chosen the D.C. case to say, we rule that the Constitution DOES ensure the right of ALL the people, even including those in D.C. who are not covered in other situations, and By God, that's the way it's going to be from now on.

If they choose the wiggle room ruling, a lot of people are going to be disappointed. Both sides of the issue want a firm decision, one way or the other.

If they choose the By God ruling, one side or the other is going to start working on a Constitutional Amendment.

Personally, I hope the court issues an unequivocal affirmation of the individual right to own guns. Although, if they do, the value of my machine gun will drop precipitously.