D.C. gun ban has been sent to the Supreme Court. It's interesting in that even the Administration and Cheney are at odds on this one. I can't even begin to predict how a conservative leaning court is going to vote on it. What will strict constructionists determine?

I interpret the wording of the 2nd Amendment to mean that if you are in the militia, you can bear arms. Historically, of course, every able-bodied man was a member of the militia, subject to call-up and therefore, every man had to have arms. In that time, there were unfriendly Indians to contend with and, of course, we'd just driven the British out.

We no longer have a militia per se. If the individual does have a right to private gun ownership, then can the government limit it at all without a constitutional amendment? It is an interesting Constitutional question and I'm glad the Supremes are finally going to hear it. I do wish Sandra Day O-Connor was still sitting with them. But we have what we have and this needs to be interpreted once and for all. I wonder if this Court will have the balls to render judgment or will they dodge the bullet? (unintentional pun)