From the March 2008 Idaho Observer:

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Second Amendment advocates await a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. Though based on the "question presented" it could appear to be a benign decision that would only affect people in the nation’s capital, it stretches so that the real question presented is, "Does the Second Amendment forbid any city, county, state or federal government or subdivision infringing on the people’s right to keep and bear arms?"

Oral arguments in Heller reportedly began March 19, 2007.

The Supreme Court has had ample opportunities to render a contemporary Second Amendment decision, but has resisted until Heller.

At issue, gun rights activists claim, is the U.S. Department of Justice’s current interpretation of the Second Amendment which is that it confers a collective right to keep and bear arms that is held by the state.

The interpretation is a matter of regulatory, punitive and political convenience. There is no question that the Founders intent was to provide for the citizenry to be armed as a defense against tyrannical government. It is also well-established historically that a free man has the right to possession of weapons for self defense and to aid in the defense of his neighbors and to repel against invasion.

It has been reported that vice-President Dick Cheney filed an amicus brief with the court taking the side that the Second amendment confers an individual right. Shockingly, that is the correct position legally, historically and in keeping with the Founders’ intent.

For a full analysis of the question, "Does the Second Amendment confer a collective right held by the state or an individual’s right to keep and bear arms," see the Unmistakable Tyranny Project at under books and DVDs in the PayPal link.

It would appear at this time that no matter how the Supreme Court rules, the decision will have sweeping implications