A case that is currently before the Supreme Court is set to possibly establish a new precedent in the making of laws relating to the 2nd Amendment. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, is examining a law that has been in effect in Washington, D.C. since 1976 that bans ownership of any handguns by city residents. Only active and retired police officers are exempt from the ban. Other firearms are required to be kept disassembled or with trigger locks in place.

A ruling striking down D.C.'s handgun ban could set the stage for changes in the law in other states and localities. It would mean a move toward protecting the individual's right to own firarms over a collective right of the people (i.e. military) as was previously established in a 1939 Court decision. That case, U.S. v. Miller, involved some suspected bank robbers and moonshiners who were being watched by Department of the Treasury agents. They were arrested for transporting an unlicensed sawed-off shotgun across state lines, which was in violation of the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. It turned out that the men were not engaged in the moonshine business at that time, but the government pursued the weapons charge against them. The defendants argued against the NFA, stating it was in violation of the 2nd Amendment. The trial court agreed with the defendants and said that the particular section in question of the NFA violated the 2nd Amendment. The indictment was thrown out.

Then the attorney for the United States appealed the decision with the Supreme Court. Among other things, the U.S. argued that the 2nd Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia. Interestingly, neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court proceedings. In a unanimous opinion, the Court reversed the previous decision and declared that no conflict had been established between the NFA and the 2nd Amendment. In their decision, it was written that there was no evidence that the short-barrelled shotgun played any role in the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and that therefore the 2nd Amendment did not guarantee a right to keep such an instrument.

Since the Miller case interpreted 2nd Amendment rights as being in conjunction with militia, it has been used as a precedent when legal challenges to federal firearms regulations come up for review. These challenges are largely rejected by the Circuit Courts based on the Miller decision. Therefore, states and districts such as Washington, D.C. have been mostly unimpeded in establishing their own gun control laws. Constitutional scholars have disagreed over what exactly the Miller decision means, but they agree it did not decisively answer the question of individual versus collective rights of firearm ownership.

That's why this new case before the Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller, is drawing so much attention. Dick Anthony Heller sued D.C. over the rejection of his application to keep a handgun. In early arguments, the Court seemed ready to lean towards individual gun ownership rights, with Chief Justice John Roberts at one point asking, "What is reasonable about a ban on possession (of handguns)?" Even if the Court determines there is an individual right, the justices will still have to decide if the District's ban can stand, and how to evaluate other gun control laws.

For information on personal safety and security equipment, visit professionalsuppliesforless.com