While we were on our break, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of Washington DC's gun laws. This is a classic test case, I've posted on the circumstances surrounding it previously. The case goes beyond the limited issues surrounding DC, but to the heart of the meaning of the amendment as it is phrased. Since it refers to a militia, does it provide for an individual or collective right?
Here is a link to the Washington Posts' summary of the amicus briefs presented to the court.
And this link takes you to the oral argument transcript.
