On November 20, 2007, the Supreme Court of the Land has agreed to take the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.
What will this mean for the 200 years of the right to keep and bear arms ?
DOWN SIDE. There are several ways in which the court could rule against the Second Admendment. Over the year, the anti-gun lobby has propounded several shifting theories to nullify the Second Amendment -that it’s a “COLLECTIVE RIGHT”- As like ["Collective Property" in a communist country]. Or that the Second Amendment is a state’s right, guarenteeing only the right of states to have Guard Units.
Recently the most popular theory has been the “NARROW INDIVIDUAL RIGHT” -meaning that the Second Amendment is an individual right of Guardsmen not be disarmed while on duty.
Yet while affirming an individual right in theory, the court could nullify it in practice by adopting a standard of review that completely defers to the policy judgments of a legislature. Example, [Duke Law Professor Chemerinsky says that guns can be regulated just as much as any other property, and since courts have upheld bans on the possession of "eagle feathers", the Supreme Court should uphold the d.c. gun ban.]
THE UP SIDE. Supreme Court decision acknowledging the unconstitutionality of the gun ban would confirm these 200 years of the right to keep-and-bear arms.
In the short – term effect a Supreme Court victory for the Second Amendment would be saving the lives of citizens of the D.C. and deterring criminal activities. However, in the long -term would have very important consquences in the development of rights -consciousness in the American people. No longer would school textbooks treat the “right -to-arms” as an forbidden topic to be talked about.
This can not be more stressed, pro-gun proponents to understand that, even after winning in the Heller case, decisions about the vast majority of the gun control issues will still be made on the political stage.
