The Supreme Court considers a landmark legal
battle over gun rights Tuesday, taking up for the first time in decades
whether Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.
In
a major case over the meaning of the Second Amendment, a Washington
security guard who wants to keep handguns at home for protection is
challenging the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban as a violation
of his constitutional rights. A federal appeals court in Washington
agreed that the city cannot ban handguns.
The
Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday in perhaps the
most closely watched case of the term. It drew 68 briefs from outside
groups, most opposed to the ban, and people began lining up Sunday for
a chance to watch the proceedings.
The court has not conclusively interpreted the
Second Amendment in the 216 years since its ratification. The basic
issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an
individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to
service in a state militia.
'No legitimate use'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."
But
( No Swearing ) Anthony Heller, 65, sued the District after it rejected his
application to keep a handgun at his home for self-defense. His lawyers
say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.
The
court's ruling, expected by the end of June, could have a far-reaching
impact on gun-control laws in the United States and could become an
issue in the November election.
The 27 words and three
enigmatic commas of the Second Amendment have been analyzed again and
again by legal scholars, but hardly at all by the Supreme Court.
The
amendment reads: "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."
Last reviewed in 1939
The
Supreme Court's last review of the Second Amendment came in a five-page
discussion in an opinion issued in 1939 that failed to definitively
resolve the constitutional issue.
The arguments follow a
series of mass shootings in the past year -- multiple killings on at
least three college campuses, two shopping centers and one Missouri
town meeting. Gun deaths average 80 a day in the United States, 34 of
them homicides, according to Centers for Disease Control data.
The case has split the Bush administration.
Solicitor
General Paul Clement, the administration's chief advocate before the
Supreme Court, has adopted the position that individuals have a right
to own a gun, but it is subject to reasonable government regulation.
Clement, who is arguing before the justices, seeks to preserve all of
the current federal restrictions, including a ban on new machine gun
sales, a ban on felons owning guns and required background checks for
new buyers of handguns.
But Vice President ( No Swearing ) Cheney joined
a group of U.S. House of Representatives and Senate members in urging
the court to adopt a stronger stand in favor of gun rights.
Walter
Dellinger, the attorney defending the Washington law, argued the Second
Amendment protected only militia-related firearms rights.
But even if an individual has the right to possess guns, the law should be upheld as a reasonable restriction, he said.
The
third attorney scheduled to appear at the arguments, Alan Gura, said
the law should be struck down. He represents Heller, who lives in a
high-crime neighborhood.
Subject: Supreme Court considers " Right to bear Arms" 
Seriously though, that was one hell of a speech. I wonder how many Democrats were actually listening that day? I am actually glad Florida has such unrestrained gun laws. As long as it's not fully automatic, you can buy damn near any gun down here. P90, AK-47, AR-15. Yeah, give me one in each color! 
