Shootout at the Supreme Court Corral

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.

- - - - 2nd Am., U.S. Const.

Update: For a more detailed review of the Circuit Court opinion in Heller, see here.

A Washington, D.C. resident filed suit challenging the district's ban on handguns that has been in effect since 1976.

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

The District is making several arguments in defense of the restriction, including claiming that the Second Amendment involves militia service. It also said the ban is constitutional because it limits the choice of firearms, but does not prohibit residents from owning any guns at all. Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled. Businesses may have guns for protection.

Read the article.

The case is now at the Supreme Court. The court's examination of the meaning of the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years carries broad implications for gun-control measures locally and across the country. This from Scotusblog:

The Supreme Court has agreed to consider the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290. The actual questions the Court will decide are

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.

These questions go to the heart of whether the Second Amendment grants an individual right to bear arms, such as the right of free speech is an individual right that the State can only regulate under the strictist of tests, or whether the Amendment grants the right to "bear arms" to the individual through the State, thus giving the state significant leeway to restrict the right to own and carry firearms. This is an issue our Supreme Court has never answered.

There are some heavilly vested interests on either side of this case, not the least of which is the NRA, so the Amicus briefs ought to be very interesting indeed. You can find the filings and briefs in this case at the Supreme Court site. I would imagine the number of learned papers that will be popping up on the net soon will be overwhelming. Instapundit has an exceptional round-up of essays on the Second Amendment, several of which he authored. And you will find sage thoughts on the issue at The Volokh Conspiracy who theorizes today how this issue will be decided between the Originalists and the liberal wing of the Court who hold to the judicial activism of the Living Contstitution theory. You can find Justice Scalia's comments from a 2005 speech on the Living Constitution theory here.