UPDATE ----- Since this question was asked in 2006, the case of Heller v. DC has gone to the Supreme Court. Heller, an armed security guard, sued DC alleging their ban on handguns and requirment that rifles and shotguns be disassembled or locked infringed on his 2A rights. Trial court found for DC but the Federal Appeals court reversed, saying that the 2A is an individual right. After refusing DC's request for en banc hearings, the case was appealed to the Supremes and oral arguments were heard in March 2008. The verdict is due in June-July 2008, but examination of the transcript suggests that the Supremes will rule in favor of the individual right, not the collective right, argument. No clue yet as to how high they will set the "infringement" standard. Pro-2A forces want "strict scrutiny" applied to examination of firearm laws(same level generally applied to 1A cases) while the Anti-2A wants the least stringent standard available under law. No word yet as to whether the Supremes will rule that the 2A applies to the states/counties/cities under the 14th Amendment. Right now, it looks like it will apply to Federal laws only since the case was raised in a Federal District and not in a state. There are two parties of thought concerning the term "militia" and the term "well regulated". Militia ------- The pro-2A side will point out that, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the militia was defined as all able-bodied men within a defined age group capable of bearing arms for the commom defense. It was separate from the "regulars", another term for the enlisted and commissioned members of a standing army under government control. This side claims that the 2A is an individual right as militiamen are expected to provide their own arms and equipment. The anti-2A side says that the militia ceased to be after the passage of the Dick Act, which made the various state-owned National Guard units part of the armed forces of the US. The NG units got Federal training, Federal weapons and equipment, and money for training and operational expenses. In exchange for this, the state was obligated to let the Federal government take control of the NG for Federal purposes, even when those purposes were not approved by the state's governor. This side claims that the 2A is a collective right that applies only to those people who are serving in a goverment-controlled military force and is a right of the state to form military units for self-defence. Well-regulated -------------- One definition of "regulated" in Webster's said that it described something that was functioning properly. A "well regulated" watch kept good time, for example. Thus, a "well regulated" militia would be analogous to a "well trained" or "properly drilled" militia. The more common association with the word equates "regulated" with "controlled". Thus, a "well regulated" militia is equated to a "well controlled [under Federal control]" militia. The only Supreme Court case that touched on the 2A was the famous US v. Miller. Miller, a moonshiner who had been caught with a sawed-off shotgun (a violation of the National Firearms Act of 1932), was found not guilty on the trial level by claiming 2A protection. The Feds appealed and lost; Miller's 2A protection was found valid. The appeal to the Supreme Court was accpeted but now there was a twist. Miller had disappeared and the lawyer handling the case never bothered to submit arguments to the court. The trial proceeded with the Feds alone making their case. The Court came back with a ruling that only said that the shotgun was not protected under the 2A as there was no proof presented that it could be used by someone in a militia. Sawed-off shotguns were used widely during WW1's trench warfare but the Feds never mentioned that. Pro-2A supporters point out that the court never invalidated Miller's 2A defence and that, if the 2A were a collective right reserved to the States, Miller would not have been allowed to proceed from the trial level with the 2A defense as he would not have had standing to do so seeing as there wasn't a State of Miller in the US at the time. Funny thing is that even without opposition, the Feds were never able to get a ruling that stated that the 2A was a collective (National Guard only) right instead of an individual right. FURTHER UPDATE -------------- The SCOTUS has ruled in DC v. Heller that the 2A is an individual right but that the right "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." This was a fine line to walk and I think that the Court did an admirable job in not trying to settle all possible questions with a single, clumsy ruling. The Court was asked if the 2A was an individual right and if the laws in DC prevented a person from protecting themselves with a firearm within the limits of their own homes. The ruling directly address only those points, with Scalia (writing for the majority) explicitly stating that this ruling does not address any other points, which would have to be tried separately as they come up. It's not the ruling I wanted to see but I hate activist judges. Even if they rule in my favor, it just isn't right.

Thursday, June 26th, 2008 11:45 am | Lyle Denniston | Answering a 217-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” ref: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a-constitutional-right-to-a-gun/