You've probably heard that the Supreme Court will be addressing the Second Amendment next spring.

This is from the New York Times...

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 — The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it would decide whether the Constitution grants individuals the right to keep guns in their homes for private use, plunging the justices headlong into a divisive and long-running debate over how to interpret the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

The court accepted a case on the District of Columbia’s 31-year-old prohibition on the ownership of handguns. In adding the case to its calendar, for argument in March with a decision most likely in June, the court not only raised the temperature of its current term but also inevitably injected the issue of gun control into the presidential campaign.

Okay, me again...

The odd thing is, the amendment is somewhat ambiguous. Here it is, in full:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Anti-gunners say the amendment clearly intends to allow gun ownership only if you are in a militia. Pro-gunners say that's untrue, that the amendment grants an individual right, not a collective one.

I happen to think that the pro-gunners are correct, and not just because I'm a gun owner myself. The writer part of me thinks the first clause in the amendment is simply citing a reason why each person individually has the right to bear arms. If the amendment were intended to allow gun ownership only if you are a member of a militia, it would've been written to clearly state that restriction.

It doesn't help that the amendment says "the people," which seems to address the population as a collection rather than a group of individuals. But look at the Fourth Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

See how it uses "the people" again? But this amendment clearly applies to individuals. The police can't search my home without a warrant.

It'll be interesting to see how the Court goes. I predict a big victory for gun proponents.

It will also be interesting to watch the crime rate in DC. Will it rise or fall? Any guesses?