Oral Arguments in D.C. Gun Case Today

In what has become one of the anticipated cases before the high court in many years, the Supremes will hear oral arguments today in the case that will determine whether the 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms, or if they can only have weapons if they belong to some sort of state militia:

WASHINGTON — The nine justices of the highest court in the land will meet Tuesday to hear arguments on who the Founding Fathers intended when they called for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms: a well regulated militia or all individuals.

Tuesday's arguments in front of the Supreme Court — the focal point for gun rights advocates and foes alike — will be the first significant Second Amendment case in front of the high court since 1939. Supporters and opponents are equally excited and concerned by the prospect of what the court’s ruling — expected by June — could mean for individuals seeking clearer laws on the right to bear arms.

Washington, D.C., the nation's capital and one party to the case, argues its handgun ban “is a governmental duty of the highest order.” The contrary argument claims the city's law is “draconian” in its infringement of Second Amendment rights, which states, "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."

In its pre-argument briefs to the Supreme Court the parties to this case seem to have been writing to convince today’s nine foremost grammarians or historians. Much of the presentations to the Supreme Court focus on the grammatical meaning of the 27-word amendment.

The agitator at the center of this case is Dick Heller, a police officer for the federal government who in his job patrolling federal buildings carries a handgun. But D.C. law prohibits him and nearly every other resident from registering a handgun for personal use.

Heller contends the handgun is necessary to defend himself at his home. The city’s law, on the books for more than three decades and one of the most stringent in the country, was passed to prevent violent and accidental gun violence. It’s a law the city and its supporters say is necessary and successful.

My gut feeling is that the court will affirm American's 2nd amendment rights to own weapons and will overturn the D.C. gun ban. A wide-ranging ruling could have an effect on gun laws across the country.

Gun control nuts who think that the answer to gun crime is more laws and more restrictions on law abiding citizens are hoping the court will narrowly limit gun ownership to only those who are members of an official state militia. I doubt the court (at least as composed today) will go that route.

I personally would like to see as liberal (in the good way) an interpretation of the 2nd amendment as possible. The gun genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of new laws or restrictions will keep bad guys from getting guns if they want them. Restricting gun ownership to a very narrow few will only guarantee that there are more unarmed victims for the bad guys.

Those of us who are law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from other law-abiding citizens owning guns or even carrying them concealed on their persons out in public. If anything, we all benefit when good people are equipped to act in an emergency.

There probably won't be a decision for awhile - maybe not until the end of the term in June. This could be one of the most important high court decisions in a long time. You can read another good article on the gun case here.