District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290

The Supreme Court of the Unted States has agreed to hear the appeal of a decsion in which the District of Columbia suffered a crushing defeat of its hand gun ban. This will be the first time in my life that the Supreme Court will tackle the 2nd Ammendment.

The question the Court has to decide is if the word "people" means "individuals" or if it means "the states". Regardless of how one feels about handuns, it is critical to read the word people as individuals since to do otherwise does violence to the rest of the constitution.

For instance, what does the 1st Amendment right of the "people to peacefully assemble" mean if "people means "the states"?

What does 4th Amendment 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" mean if "people" means "the sates"?

What of the tenth amendment which says. "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."? Does that make any sense if it means "reserved to the states respectively, or to the states"?

What of the 17th Amendment, whereby the Senate became electable "from each State, elected by the people thereof"? Can "people" possibly mean "the state" here?

Let us hope that even in the case of hand guns, "the people" means "the people" for if it ever begins to mean "the state" tyranny is upon us and the blood of our ancestors was shed in vain.

Now should we amend the constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment? That is a different question and is entirely within the powers of the people and the states. It is not within the power of the Supreme Court.