I've never been and will likely never be again so relieved to have conservatives in power!

I wonder whether Souter will have to recuse himself since he was mugged on the streets of DC. Doubtful, yes, but I wouldn't be surprised if his experience colors his opinion.

On a similar note, I wonder how many of the justices are, like Souter, residents of the District proper.

Earlier I heard that the Court could take a narrow or broad view on this depending upon what question they are asking. For example, Broad = if they think the issue they need to decide is if laws that restrict gun ownership (like DC's) is constitutional. This could lead to much looser gun laws across the country. OR Narrow = something like do the DC gun owners in question have a right to bring this law suite? Something that wouldn't necessarily have a huge impact on gun laws. I didn't do justice (no pun) to describing the narrow example, but you hopefully get my drift.

Any lawyers out there know which it is?

broad.

Part of the key to the question in my opinion is the part about keeping "handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes".

Does DC really have the right to completely ban firearms from homes? If not, does DC really have the right to completely ban firearms outside homes in all circumstances (like when you are bringing a gun home from the gun store)?

Nope. The Supreme's set this up as a softball. DC will be invited to try this again, but I think the clear instruction will be that DC cannot in any way ban people entirely from keeping "handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes".

It won't answer all the questions that many of us would like answered, but it will be a pretty good start.

I used to have the usual lefty attitude toward gun control. But, then, I'm sick to death of the DC police being essentially useless. I have ZERO faith in MPD being able to protect me if someone broke in meaning to do me harm.

True, DC's ban isn't really a good example, as everybody knows VA was more than happy to supply every DC hood a gun no questions asked.

But what we've got now clearly ain't working.

And it would be sortof nice to know I could defend myself in my own home.

Would it result in more crime or less crime? Who really knows. The stats are all over the place, depending on who is reporting them. I'm tempted to say that we wouldn't really see that much difference, but that's just my gut feeling.

I’m not sure this will be as much of a grand slam for the gunnies as many think. The Court today is very constructionist/conservative. These are the cats who would prefer, if given a hum-dinger, to hop in a cab to the National Archives, take a peak at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, see if they can find anything written right there plain as day on the dusty pages, and call it a day. Haters of penumbrae, the last thing they would do would be to read something into the Bill of Rights that just isn’t there.

Well, is the right to keep a gun in your home for self defense a right protected by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights?

It kind of depends on how much weight you give the justification for the right conferred. It was out of fear of foreign and/or domestic unrest (Tyranny) along with fears of an all-powerful federal government (the anti-federalists' big gripe) that might seek to usurp the rights of individual states which provided the justification for giving the People the right to keep and bear arms. Query: without those dangers, identified as the biggest threats to liberty being present today (or readily apparent anyway), such that individuals do not regularly participate in militia training, is the right conferred still guaranteed? Or, is the right conferred to the People an absolute and the first section regarding a well regulated militia merely anachronistic dicta?

Arguably, the SCOTUS framed the question this way just so they could say hey, you want to form a militia in Dupont Circle (Oh, I am so getting a Calvin Klein tricorder hat), go right ahead and we’ll see whether the District’s laws can prevent you from organizing, marching, training, obtaining weapons, etc. in a separate opinion. But if it’s home protection you are after, well, sir you are S.O.L.

Of course, the flip-side of this is that unless you can obtain those weapons for home protection, how on Earth are you going to form any kind of militia if and when necessary? [Visions of Monty Python skit where Spanish Inquisition makes woman sit in Comfy Chair and pokes her repeatedly with pillows].

We’ll see.

Excuse me while I put on some popcorn. This is going to be a long thread.

While this may be more thought out thread, the five guys post still has more comments...

Mmmm fries

It's about time the SCOTUS picks up the burger issue. This concern over firearms is obviously so passé.

"Or, is the right conferred to the People an absolute and the first section regarding a well regulated militia merely anachronistic dicta?"

I've gone with this view over the past few years.. but if you assume that is the case, you have to admit it is weird how the 2nd amendment is the only one with its own preamble.

MONKEY said: I've always wondered how you're supposed to form a milita in DC if you're not allowed to have guns.

Well___

Maybe use cardboard placeholders that say "If we were a state, this stupid sign would be an AK-47"? I dunno. Seems strange.

What also seems strange, however, is something I picked up from the WaPo's Marc Fisher Comments Section today. Here:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/?hpid=topnews

Some guy commented about what "a well regulated Militia" means. I had always taken this at face value thinking, hmmnn--we live in a regulated society, I guess if there was to be a Militia [visions (I have them a lot lately) of the guys out in Michigan that started a Militia in movie Bowling for Columbine] the Framers thought it might be a good idea to keep an eye on them and well, regulate them as such.

Apparently this is wrong according to this gent's comments. The word regulate in the context of the 2nd A. is, according to him, supposed to be more in line with the context we normally reserve for describing bowel movements.

As in, "Doc I'm having a problem with, you know, regularity. I've tried everything--bran muffins, laxatives, a gallon of apple cider and nothing's worked yet."

"Well, son, a well regulated colon being necessary to the security of a free booty, the right of the people to obtain and use hashish infused broomstick suppositories--like the gold plated ones you see in BET rap videos, shall not be infringed. They really work."

Or something like that.