Historically, the Supreme Court holds the view that Congress cannot infringe these rights, and therefore, by the 10th Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) it is a right of the states (to decide the degree of infringement). As Washington D.C. is a federal district and not a state, this poses some interesting problems. By the 10th amendment, and since DC is not a state, the right to infringe arms falls to the people of DC. At the same time, however, DC exists to serve the federal government, and is regulated by it. It could be possible, depending upon the ruling of the Supreme Court, to see two outcomes for DC… becoming the most restrictive region concerning arms or the most liberal. This will be an interesting case to follow.

A historical note, the founding fathers remembered what the British occupying forces attempted to do in the opening days of the American Revolution. On April 19, 1775 the Brits, strategically wise, attempted to capture the arms and powder stores of the Massachusetts colonists that were stored at Concord… barely 19 miles away from occupied Boston. Forewarned, the colonists thwarted the Brits, removed the arms and powder, and ambushed the force sent to retrieve said arms. Had the Redcoats succeeded, Massachusetts would have been effectively disarmed and completely vulnerable. The Revolution would have ended before it really began, and long before there was any open cry for our nation’s independence. I think this lesson was chief in the minds of the writers of the Bill of Rights… its importance (the 2nd amendment) is also reflected by its sequence in the bill. Rights that one is unable to practically defend (and protect) are moot.

Militias were also an important part of British colonial life in America, for defense against Native Americans, the French, and the Spanish. Remember that the Seven Years War (or French and Indian War) ended in 1763, a little more than a dozen years prior to the Declaration of Independence. And the British did not go away, having firm control of Canada, Bermuda, and other colonies in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. Their designs on retaking the colonies were seen by the War of 1812 as well as their scheming to influence Texas as a buffer and staging ground (after independence in 1836 and prior to annexation in 1845).

Because of these conditions, it is my opinion that an originalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment will serve to uphold more liberal (meaning more free/less restrictive) gun control legislation. In the other extreme, legislating from the bench, may do quite the opposite. The practice (legislating from the bench) robs the American people of their voice by subverting or usurping their elected representatives (Congress) whose job it is to legislate. The role of the court is to interpret law, not to legislate or to enforce (execute) the law. It’s also my opinion that no matter how the Court decides, many will be unhappy. Whether or not the Court will make a ruling making community militia membership a criterion for the ownership of arms may never come up in this case. I think that the case will focus on whether or not DC has a right to infringe the rights of gun ownership.

Update:

Here is a good summary of the court decision.

It appears that Second Amendments rights are on track for a win!