Supreme Court to decide D.C. ban on handguns 
          The U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on case 07-290, that could mean a United States returning to the gun-toting West depicted in horse operas or just the latest in a long line of decisions based upon the Con- stitution as it is rather than one some quarters want it to be saying. Or, more likely, something in between.
          The Second Amendment, the No. 2 item in the Bill of Rights at- tached to the Constitution, states in full: “A well-regulated militia be- ing necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the peo- ple to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
          Gun supporters usually cite only the latter half of the amendment, which with the rest of the first 10 rights has an anniversary Dec. 15. But the latter half is part of the same sentence, and the framers were not fools, so the latter and first half do not exist ot exist without the other.
          Thus, if the only weapons allowed in the United States other than those controlled by the military were kept in town or state armories des- ignated for that purpose, the Second Amendment would be satisfied. And just about every town of any size has one. They are called National Guard armories because the National Guard is what we call our militias these days.
          Just down the road in the U.S. Constitution, there resides the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
          That means the individual states have the power to ban guns with- in their borders. Similarly, if the state itself does not ban guns, but its Constitution allows its municipalities to do so, towns and cities may ban guns, neither entity in violation of the Second Amendment.
          Conversely, if the federal government, a state or town does not ban guns, the U.S. Constitution says you can have them.
          That there are such things as militias that continue to exist after the revolutionary war as today's National Guard is made certain in the body of the Constitution, specifically in Article II, which lays out the pow- ers of the presidency. It says the president is commander-in-chief of the military "and of the militia of the several states, when called into the ac- tual service of the United States."
          The U.S. Supreme Court ruling as it stands today holds to this in- terpretation of the Second Amendment, but could be altered if the court rules otherwise in case 07-290, concerning a Washington, D.C., gun- control law.
          The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, or the local government of the U.S. capital versus Dick Anthony Heller. The question presented to the court is a narrow one. It asks whether a municipality can ban any gun if it is kept in a home. In this case, D.C. enacted a law that banned private ownership of hand guns, regardless of where it is kept, but al- lowed ownership of rifles and shotguns:

                                QUESTION PRESENTED
                Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-
           abiding,  adult  individuals  a  right  to  keep  ordinary,
           functional   firearms,   including   handguns,   in   their
           homes.

          Heller took the case to federal court and won at the appeals court level. D.C. is a municipality, but challenges to its laws are treated as federal issues since it is not part of a state with its own court system. Thus, its cases are handled in the federal District Court and Appeals Court that also review federal laws.
          Since the appeals court ruling overturning the district court's re- jection of Heller's arguments flew in the face of the last time the land's highest court adjudicated the issue--1939--and the rest of the appeals court districts still operated according to that last decision, the Supreme Court had little choice but to consider the case even though it has turned down every other gun-possession case over the past 70 years.
          On its surface, this is a narrowly defined issue--whether one type of gun, including the handguns specified in the law, can be banned if it is kept in one's home. The court always has upheld a more sweeping right of governments to limit gun possession to "militias," as clearly state in the Second Amendment.
          If the court rules narrowly, it will confirm or not confirm a munici- pality may ban the ownership of a gun kept in a home, essentially leav- ing its most recent decision, in 1939, the law of the land.
          But biases, agendas and unique readings of the meaning of laws and the Constitution often creep into Supreme Court deci- sions.
          The current court is one composed of a majority chosen by Re- publican presidents who tend to be more embracing of the National Rifle Association, which rarely quotes anything more than the huge and in- fluential membership.
          The NRA, then located on the edge of downtown D.C., put off its  planned relocation to the far suburbs of Virginia for a few years because it justified the initial move as because D.C. had become too dangerous, making it the laughing stock of a metropolitan area that appreciated irony. Area residents knew that D.C. had become the nation's capital for drive-by shootings (not drive-by knifings) and the murder capital of the nation, just about all of those crimes commited with guns.
          But the NRA claims a membership of nearly 4 million members, who NRA lobbyists insist comprise a huge voting bloc that often actually does vote as a bloc, fired up by NRA screeds. The the group joined dozens of others in filing amici briefs, but only after fighting hard behind the scenes to see the case did not make it to the high court. It lost that effort, a rarity for the organization, but the NRA never quits.
          So anything could happen.
          Oral arguments were held in March, but justices did not tip their hands enough to be able to predict the outcome when they hand down their decision by the end of June. That decision could turn out to be no more than punt the case back to the lower courts on some legal tech- nicality.
          As was evident in the primary campaigns, presidential candidates have not stomach for challenging the NRA and its huge voting bloc. As usual, Republicans hugged the group and Democrats tended to dance around an outright endorsement while safely declining to challenge the gun owners.
          Stay tuned.