The United States Supreme Court will hear a Second Amendment challenge, the first since 1939, regarding an attempt to ban guns from individuals starting in the nation's capitol. The high court will review District of Columbia v. Heller in which the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling upheld the Second Amendment protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms. 

The District of Columbia’s recent bans on handguns, carrying firearms within the home, and possession of loaded or operable firearms for self-defense is seen as a clear violation of the amendment.

Major gun lobbyist groups, including the National Rifle Association, will participate in the case through briefs as a friend of the court while the court will hear oral arguments in early 2008.

The D.C. Circuit also rejected the claim that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because D.C. is not a state. 

In the past, many superficial interpretations of the Second Amendment have sought to ignore the basic rights of individuals and to focus on states having been granted the right to bear arms. In the landmark case U.S. v. Emerson the court underscored the fact that individuals rights to private gun ownership was the Amendment's guarantee and the Rights were given to individuals by the Constitution and not to states, which received only power or authority from the Constitution.

The court further dictated much historical evidence supporting that the primary concerns of the founders were essentially two: to ensure protection of the nation/state from foreign invasion (nation defense), 2) to secure the people from tyrannical rule taking hold in their government or a standing army that might later be formed--recounting the loathing of Europe's populace being disarmed and therefore unable to keep their government's in check. The Second Amendment was clearly more about securing the liberty and safety of the individual and collective than the government or state.

In a 2000 case that is attempting to be heard by the US Supreme Court, Silveira v. Lockyer, California attorney Gary Gorski challenged harsh restrictionist laws on semi-automatic guns in that state. The case was tossed out of the lower courts and ended in appeals in the U.S. Ninth District Court, in which the court ruled that retired police offers were not so called "super-citizens" and were therefore to be held to the same laws all other citizens and had to comply with such bans or restrictions - further ruling that the laws were consistent with the state's rights, not the individual's right under the Constitution.

With over 285 million guns in private ownership hands across the nation, and many industries such as environmental conservationism dependant on hunting fees and private gun ownership in general, it is extremely unlikely that any ruling by the US Supreme Court that attempted to remove private gun ownership would be successful in reality. Most gun owners in America would rather fight than hand over the weapons and most police who are also private gun owners would likely not enforce such laws is in any case.

For most Americans, the outlawing of private gun ownership would likely be perceived as the very thing the founders were attempting to secure Americans from when they drafted the Right---tyranny!