Supreme Court to hear 2nd Amendment Arguments

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will specifically decide whether

means that the right to bear arms applies to citizens, or state militias like the National Guard. It was brought upon by a case from a Washington D.C. resident challenged the handgun ban.

The Guardian has a good article on it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2215024,00.html

Note that the question being considered is only whether the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals or not. It would only change laws in areas that outright prohibit private firearms ownership (DC, Chicago, NYC). It would not affect gun control laws for the most part.

Asst. Police Chief of DC had this to say about the case:

Why even bother opening your mouth? Maybe if gun related homicides were less than 20% of total homicides you'd have a point.

As far as gun owners go, we re lucky that this is probably the best possible court we are going to get for affirming 2nd Amendment rights. If it doesn't happen under this court, it never will.

NYC doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, outright prohibit private firearms ownership.

This case may not effect state gun laws, unless a ruling is sweeping enough to incorporate the 2nd Amendment, since DC is not a state (that was part of the Circuit Court ruling that overturned DC's ban).

. . . areas that prohibit private gun ownership ?(DC, Chicago, NYC)

interesting.

NYC doesn't "technically" outlaw firearms, but keeps a tight reign on long rifle and shotgun ownership (you have to be permitted to own), and it's extremely hard to get a permit to own a pistol.

DC has an extremely similar methodology, except longarms are more regulated (being within shooting distance of the president and all), and no pistol permits have been issued since 1976 (so "technically" pistols are legal in DC, they just haven't given out any permits).

Of course, i'm not an expert on the laws, but that's my understanding. It's easier to say "ban" because effectively, it is.

The chances of this decision touching NY, Chicago or any other municipalities' gun laws is virtually nil.

First you'd have to get Kennedy's vote, which is a huge assumption and gamble. Given, his erratic voting patterns, his huge hard-on for using foreign law as an influence in his own judging (hint: foreign law is not so friendly to the individual right to bear arms in general), and the complete lack of other relevant second amendment decisions for which he's signed on, there's just no real way of telling which way he'll vote until we get to oral arguments. Secondly (and more importantly), you'd have to have the decision in the case incorporate the Second Amendment to the states.

Here's the reason why that's unlikely: Scalia, Thomas and Alito (ostensibly the folks you're counting on to vote pro-individual right to own guns) despise the incorporation doctrine. It's anathema to their entire espoused judicial philosophy. In order for them to take that step, they'd have to make hypocrites of themselves. Now, they do that all the time, of course, but never so blatant and judicially "active".

It'll be an interesting case for sure, but don't expect any kind of sea change for gun law jurisprudence.

As far as Kennedy, here's what a Orin Kerr, a former clerk of his, and GDub Law Prof said:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_11_18-2007_11_24.shtml#1195588501

Even most of the left-leaning blogs seem to predict a 5-4 ruling in favor of individual rights, with a high estimate of 6-3. Of course, whether it gets incorporated or not is a whole nother issue, and even if it is decided to protect individual rights, it will leave almost all gun legislation intact.

Well, that's a guess and I'm sure he knows what he's talking about, but it's still a guess. And I'd bet serious money that neither Stevens or Souter will vote with the majority. You'll have a 5-4 decision either way.