For the first time in our country's history, the Supreme Court may actually give its own definition of what the Second Amendment means. Meaning, does it provide a "collective" or "individual" right to gun ownership? Given this [5] from erstwhile "swing vote" Anthony Kennedy, those of us in the individual rights crowd might have reason to be happy:
Several key justices, including Anthony Kennedy, suggested by their questions Tuesday that they believed the Second Amendment was rooted in a concern for Americans' ability to protect themselves.
Kennedy referred to the "concern of the remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that."
A peek at the back-and-forth [6]:
"Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say No handguns here?'" Justice Stephen Breyer asked.
On the other side, Chief Justice John Roberts asked at one point: "What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?
Looks like another case where we'll all be saying "thank-you" to GWB for Roberts and Alito.
At issue is DC's gun ban...the strongest in the nation...(in a city with sky-high crime...go figure).
