High Court Has 'Shot' At Right to Bear Arms' Case

November 12, 2007 — -- WASHINGTON — A U.S. appeals court decision defying precedent on gun rights has reached the steps of the Supreme Court, carrying with it the potential for a seismic shift in laws across the nation.Since 1939, the nation's judges had generally regarded the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms" as belonging to state militias, such as National Guard units, not to individual gun owners. But on March 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit interpreted the Second Amendment differently. The panel concluded that it protects an individual's right to firearms and struck down a Washington, D.C., ban on handguns.

Now the justices are poised to announce as early as Tuesday whether they will take up the case. The court's last major ruling on gun rights came in 1939 in United States v. Miller, when the justices said the Second Amendment covers a collective right of militias.

For decades, lower courts adopted that view. But judges are no longer in lock step, and today's court might believe it is time, after nearly seven decades, to clarify the law.

Whether a majority of these nine justices would view the Second Amendment the same way as the 1939 court is difficult to predict because the court has seldom touched on this area of the law.

In an unusual twist for two opposing parties, the District of Columbia officials who lost in the lower court and the man who prevailed have asked the justices to hear the appeal. Both sides want the justices to clarify the breadth of the constitutional right to bear arms — a topic that has long aroused passions in America.

"This is the most significant Second Amendment case to come before the court, maybe ever, but especially since the Miller case," says Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "There are a lot of cities, a lot of states, looking at this. It could affect gun laws across the country. It could end up playing a role in the 2008 elections."

Helmke says he believes the weight of history and precedent would be on the side of gun-control advocates. "But it's like gambling," he says, noting that these nine justices have never weighed in directly. "We think it's a winnable case for the district, but you never know."