The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on whether the District of Columbia's ban on handgun ownership violates the Constitution.

Last spring, a federal appeals court struck down the ban, which had been in effect for 31 years.

Gun rights proponents are happy about the court's decision to hear the case because they believe the court will rule that the D.C. ban is unconstitutional.

Gun control advocates are concerned that the court could rule so broadly that it would prohibit all future gun ownership restrictions such as an attempt to revive the assault weapon ban.

However, some gun owners are worried that the court could define the Second Amendment literally according to its language, which specifies "a well-regulated militia."

Blogs and other Internet commentaries are being flooded with gun owner comments expressing fear that the court might rule that citizens must be part of a militia to own firearms.

The court has not ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment since 1939.

0 Comments