The Supreme Court hasn't weighed in much on the Second Amendment, but that's going to change soon due to a successful challenge of D.C.'s gun control policy in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (which is regarded as stepping stone to the Supreme Court). Their decision is certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court and equally certain to be accepted for review.
Background:
Washington D.C. has a notorious crime problem and has in the past been called America's Murder Capital. In 1976, in order to reduce crime, the city enacted strong anti-gun ordinances that banned all guns in the city that were not purchased in 1976 or before and requiring that guns in homes be kept disassembled. The law has apparently been ineffective, but supporters contend that gun crime would be greater if the law was repealed.
The case, Parker v. the District of Columbia, was initiated by several citizens of D.C. who wanted to have guns available for self protection. They argued that the law violates their Second Amendment Rights.
Which is where things get interesting because there is no clear precedent for interpreting the Second Amendment and its confusing opening clause "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...".
Does the right to own and possess a gun exist apart from this stipulation? One may well argue that since we don't have militias anymore, and the military supplies arms to its troops, the Second Amendment is anachronistic and has no application in today's society. But it can also be pointed out that people have been allowed to possess guns for many reasons (hunting, sport, and colleting among them) since the country's founding creating a precedent for interpreting the law as applying to non-militia contexts.
We simply don't know what the clause means, but the Supreme Court will be abel to clear this matter up for us.
But wait, there's more. A related issue touches on whether Second Amendment Rights are absolute. Speech rights aren't. One can be punished for using one's freedom of speech in a manner that violates public order or infringes on the rights of others. Does a greater interest in reducing crime (a legitimate public good) also allow gun rights to be compromised?
Again, the S.C. will help us find out.
Depending on how the S.C. chooses to rule, their decision could impact gun control legislation across the country--but only if they choose to rule broadly. They could, and often do, make decisions that apply narrowly to the specific issue in the case before them and resist the urge to set policy for the entire country. But they may make an exception here, who knows?
Worth noting:
Among those supporting the appellants were many state's Attorney Generals, including our very own Greg Abbott, The National Rifle Association (no suprise) and the Congress of Racial Equality.
Other Attorney Generals lined up with the city as did the Brady Center.
