District of Columbia vs. Heller.

I am getting concerned about this case. The Question Presented is “Whetherthe Second Amendment forbids D.C. from banning the private procession ofhandguns, while allowing the possession of shotguns and rifles.”

Meanwhile, the petition for a Writ of Certiorari is granted stating“Whether the provisions in the D.C. Code violate the second amendment rightof individuals who are not affiliated with any state regulated militia, butwho wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in theirhomes.”

Arguments will be heard on Tuesday, March 18. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/07-00290qp.pdf Both “Question Presented” and the “Writ of Certiorari” could be answereddifferently. The question is whether a district can enact a law without regard to theconstitution.

In Miller vs. Texas, SCOTUS unanimously ruled that “a state law forbiddingthe carry of dangerous weapons does not abridge the privileges orimmunities of Citizens o the United States.” The conclusion seems tosuggest that the Bill of rights refer to the Federal Government, and notthe states.

Likewise in Presser Vs. Illinois, SCOTUS ruled that the Secondamendment only applied to the federal Govt and not upon the states, On the other side, U.S. Vs. Cruikshank in 1876, Brown vs Walker in 1896 andin Robertson vs. Brown in 1987, SCOTUS found that the first ten amendmentsare granted to all free citizens in a way not founded by Govt or theconstitution, but were inalienable rights. This seems to create a paradoxby saying they are inalienable rights for the Feds, but not for the states.

While SCOTUS has treated the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, SCOTUShas allowed for states to enact laws restriction the possession of firearmsin PUBLIC places. That is why the crux will weigh strongly on the phrase“private use in their homes.”