Oral Argument In Parker V. D.C.

"...DC law prohibits ANY functional firearm in the home, without any exceptions for self-defense use. Firearms cannot be loaded, and must be disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. Removing the trigger lock for any reason — say, to shoot a home invader –would result in prosecution if known to the police. This specific case is challenging the whole law, if we win here the city will likely pass a law with some self-defense exceptions that later cases can challenge."

JGR: what is the militia TODAY?

Gu: the people of the U.S.

JGR: what about “well regulated?”

Gu: that meant training

JGR: 200 years ago, it meant “state control”; “well regulated” is not the same as “militia”

Gu: back then, regulated meant trained; Harvard law journal article explained the concept, citation is 9 Harv. J. Pub. Pol. 559; read quotes from Oxford Eng. Dict.; we use the original meaning to interpret the Amendment as written; the Constitution protects the concept, not the term

JSI: Regulated = supplied?

Gu: cited the Militia Clause regarding government suppling private citizens

____________________________________________

So precisely what is Parker V. D.C.?

"In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.

At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a challenge to California's ban on assault weapons.

In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection."

In reality, D.C. has little leg to stand on. Modern Constitutional scholars agree as to what "regulated militia" meant during the framing, but this has never stopped liberals from making their own laws contrary to the Constitution. It's a tossup as to how the Supreme Court would handle this, seeing as how there are only 4 truly Conservative justices.