[awkx]

Should DC Personal Protection Act (HR 1399, S 1001) be supported? As many of you are likely aware, the DC Courts of Appeals ruled in Parker v. District of Columbia that the DC handgun ban unconstitutionally infringes the right to keep and bear arms. As such, the main effect of the DC Personal Protection Act (repealing the handgun ban) would be to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing the appellate court's decision, as the issue would be moot. If the Supreme Court affirms the ruling, it would be a tremendous victory for supporters of the Constitution's second amendment. On the other hand, the Court may reverse the ruling, either on narrow technical grounds or, even worse, in a way that questions the right to arms.

I think we can be fairly certain that Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito would faithfully interpret the Second Amendment. There is no Supreme Court precedent favoring the "collective right" misinterpretation. (US v. Miller was decided on the basis that it was not within the court's judicial notice that a sawed-off shotgun is a weapon commonly used by the military. This provides a precedent only for interpreting the word "arms" as used in the Second Amendment.)

Additionally, the appellate court notes that Justice Ginsburg (joined by Justice Souter, among others) previously indicated that the phrase "bear arms" as used in the Second Amendment applies to individuals even if outside of an organized militia:

We also note that at least three current members (and one
former member) of the Supreme Court have read “bear Arms”
in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere
soldiering: “Surely a most familiar meaning [of ‘carries a
firearm’] is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (‘keep
and bear Arms’) and Black’s Law Dictionary . . . indicate:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in
a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for
offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another
person.” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998)
(Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,
and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing,
we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for
“bear Arms.”

Furthermore, in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the Court seems to have indicated that the phrase "the people" used in the Second amendment refers to US citizens generally:

... it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments..., refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

Although the present composition of the Supreme Court may not be ideal, if Parker isn't heard, there is no guarentee that a worse case won't be heard (e.g., one brought by a convicted criminal challenging his conviction, which might prejudice the court).