Here's the expected follow up to a story we highlighted in the spring (see Test Case) involving a court challenge to the constitutionality of Washington DC's gun control laws.
The city's laws were found unconstitutional by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and I predicted, a very easy prediction, that the city would appeal to the Supreme Court and that the appeal would be acepted. Now comes word that that's the case. The Supreme Court rarely rules on Second Amendment cases and has never actually clarified what the language actually means.
Here it is: "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."
Debate has always centered on whether the right to bear arms depends on the need for a well regulated militia. If there is no militia, meaning no need for the population to have arms that they can bring to a battle when called to respond to a threat, then there may be no right to bear arms. Since we have a standing, we have no militia, so no gun rights.
Unless the Supreme Court inferes that the Second Amendment actually is a personal right that exists whether or not militias are used.
Here's a link to the writ of certiorari (request for review) sent to the court by DC.
More to come, thsi is going to be good.
