My diary, so I get to go first!

Personally, I despise the 2nd Amendment. I don't like guns, and I don't think DC residents need handguns (or VA residents for that matter).

That said, I also think the 2nd Amendment is completely unambiguous. It says individuals can have guns, and that's that. To do something about it, we'd have to amend the constitution, and that's unlikely to happen any time soon (and doesn't have popular support).

I think the SCOTUS is likely to rule the ban unconstitutional, and rightly so, as much as it pains me to say it.

Not according to this:

...The amendment is an ambiguous, mealy-mouthed compromise that conveniently leaves for another day (like 2008) a legal resolution of the debate between gun rights enthusiasts and gun control advocates - a fight that is older than the country itself. Ohio State University history professor Saul Cornell established as much in his fine recent book on the matter.

I actually don't hate guns.

But the 2nd Amendment is not "completely unambiguous," and I'd be surprised -- quite independent of how the court rules on this particular case -- if the SCOTUS will find an absolute right for individuals to own guns.

First, it says nothing about "guns." It says "arms," so there is that problem. If it is a right to own a handgun, isn't it a right to own, say, a SAM?

But more specifically, certainly you don't think mentally ill people have a right to possess arms, do you? How about convicted felons?  

Hey now, aznew. I said I personally don't think anyone should own guns. I just want to get the debate going! (with strongly worded phrases like "complete unambiguous"!)

Lowell, to your quote, I can find you any quote to support any side in this debate. But a good many constitutional scholars do tend to agree that while the wording may be vague, the intention was not. Arms, even then, meant weapons of any kind, and was commonly used to refer to guns. "The people" is used multiple times in the Constitution to refer to individual rights (contrary to the collective rights argument). The intro regarding the militia is a perfect example of "flowery language," also commonly used in the Constitution.

Sure there's reasonable limiting that does not "infringe." Sawed-off shotguns across state lines, assault weapons, SAM's. But handguns are not unreasonable to own (again, just being devil's advocate here - I don't personally believe that). And DC's ban is arguably infringing.

doesn't specify particular types of "arms."  I mean, can you own a nuclear weapon, a fully-armed F-16, etc?  Where do you draw the line on the "right to bear arms?"

And I appreciate you were only trying to get the discussion going.

Your comment that there is a "reasonable limiting" that does not infringe is inconsistent with your assertion previously that the 2nd Amendment "unambiguously" afforded an individual right to bear arms. What is reasonable?

As for original intent, while I agree that the use of the word "people" can mean an individual right, it is certainly not dispositive. More to the point, however, use of this rule of construction would require consideration of, not dismissal of, the introductory clause, which clearly suggests the intent of the right was collective, i.e., that the Federal Government could not, by force of law, render owning  weapons illegal as a means of preventing the formation of state militias that could counter the expected effort of the Federal government to exert tyrannical power.

I wouldn't predict what the Supremes will do. If, however, the four Justices of the Apocalypse sitting up these do find a fifth vote for a crackpot theory of an individualized right to own arms, the America will become a more dangerous place. Not because of law-abiding, responsible gun owners, collectors, hunters.

Even in 1790, the term "arms" meant more than "firearms". If the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, it's a right to all classes of arms, and the militia clause would seem to give more protection to military-grade weapons than "personal defense" pistols or hunting rifles. Could you really prevent individual citizens from owning chemical or biological weapons or bomb components if this were the case? (And if so, how would this differ from the District of Columbia's point that the handgun ban only restricts ownership of a certain class of arms, not all arms altogether?)

And then there's the matter of denying the right permanently to some classes of persons, like convicted felons. "Reasonable regulation", the usual phrase brought up in this context, never applies anything more than a temporary, situational restriction of other individual constitutional rights. We don't cut people's tongues out for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. We don't force convicted felons to join the Episcopal Church. In fact, if they are accused of new crimes, they have the same right to a fair trial as a person with no priors. So what "reasonable" basis can there be to deny people firearms for a lifetime, if that is indeed an individual constitutional right?

for anyone that can read.

NPR has a good toolbar which allows for streaming the radio and also tracking down and playing interviews.  Diane Rehm's interview of a second amendment scholar today is well worth a listen.

Activists on both sides of questions are usually eager to have the S.Ct. decide big constitutional questions.  The court is usually eager to avoid answering them.  In part, it's easier to get an opinion through if it's narrowly written.  It'll be interesting waiting for this opinion.

I expect the Court will neither uphold or strike down the DC law.  They will make a narrow point (for example, the DC court found that the law amounts to a complete ban on functional firearms and that conclusion is incorrect) and send it back to the DC Circuit.

This gives the Court more time to let lower courts and briefs cover the questions.  

The next most likely outcome, I think, is that the Court will strike it down as overbroad without ruling whether a STATE could enact the same law.  The "State" is mentioned in the amendment, after all.  The decision would also leave unclear how broad the restrictions could be in DC.

Whatever the ruling, pay close attention to the explanation of why they ruled that way.  It'll be important.

Thanks for that analysis. Very well put.

It's the purpose of "the right to bear arms" part of an amendment that assured state management of their militias that's the issue, IMHO. If the states still had militias like 220 years ago, then individual citizens who registered as militiamen and trained, drilled and were equipped with weapons could keep them in their homes, but in accordance with their militia service not hunting, sport, etc.

To me, it's clear the Second Amendment is about state regulation and maintanence of their militias. If the amendment simply said "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" then that wouldn't be the case, but the militia portion isn't there just for decoration, and all portions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (especially the original 1789-1791 parts) do serve a purpose for a nation of social-compact republicanism. That said, if a state wanted to ban all private ownership of firearms, the state could under the Second Amendment because the amendment is to protect states from unwarranted and wrongful FEDERAL intervention in the operation of their militias. So if the Court thinks of DC as a state, then obviously the District can do what it wants with handguns since the amendment gives states the right to do what they want with arms and militia service.

Since the Supreme Court ruled in 1939 that the amendment refers only to militia service, federal appeals courts are 42-1 in upholding gun control laws against Second Amendment complaints. State supreme courts have ruled as far back as 1840 the amendment refers only to militia service.

I'm not opposed to gun ownership, but I don't believe firearm ownership and/or use unconnected to militia service is a federal constitutional protection. Don't forget, the Founders' world is not our world, and courts and federal law has recognized National Guards as modern-day militias.

"Don't forget, the Founders' world is not our world, and courts and federal law has recognized National Guards as modern-day militias."

The founders of this country were more educated and more worldly than anything that passes for a politician today.  Their world, the founding of our country, is also our world.  People don't change, and neither do tyrants.

Inso far as your refrence to the US v Miller (1939) the SC found that a sawed off shot gun did not meet the standard as a weapon suitable to military service.  Miller was already dead by the time the SC heard the case and had no legal representation in the case.

The founders of this country were more educated and more worldly than anything that passes for a politician today.  Their world, the founding of our country, is also our world.

It's a known fact that Patrick Henry was a huge "Dancing With the Stars" fan.

Even if this is ruled constitutional by the court, which is HIGHLY unlikely, that the Senate and House have bills underway that would overrule DC law if signed by the President.  Guess which Virginia Senator is a co-sponsor of the bill?  (Hint: it ain't John Warner)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...

Look, I'm pretty pro-Second Amendment.  I'll admit, I suppot any ban on automatic weapons.  But rifles and handguns serve specific purposes: hunting and protection.  I think that the people of DC should be allowed to own guns should they choose so.  If you don't want to, don't.  You don't have to.  But people who want to use guns to do bad things are going to get their hands on them anyways.  Come on, people, they live next to Virginia.  Might as well give the good people a chance to defend themselves from the bad people, right?

In the 2nd, they say "The right of the people shall not be infringed"

In the 1st, they say "The right of the people to peacefully assemble".

In the 4th, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures"

The right against government intrusion (what liberals believe is the backbone of the inferred "right to privacy" that wasn't discovered until the last 50 years) is most definitely an individual right, and it uses the same language as the 2nd Amendment.

The ten amendments were adopted to give individuals (and the press) certain inalienable rights not found in the original Constitution.  The Second Amendment was not adopted to give the state or federal government the right to take away the right of individuals to bear arms.  Just because the militia, which every able bodied man was subject to back then, is named by name, does not mean it is the equivalent of the National Guard now. Every law-abiding American should have the right to defend his-her self from violent attacks by the millions of thugs who would love to prey on an unarmed populace.  It is tough to think about taking a human life, but if that person is directly threatening the life or limb of my loved ones, I will defend them with a gun.  We live in a fantasy world to think that anything else will give us a fighting chance, years of karate mean nothing when facing a pistol in the hands of a desperate intruder or mugger. At least, if we have training and are authorized by the state to carry a concealed weapon we have a fighting chance.  The good people of D.C. deserve that chance.