Ultimately this hearing could finally answer if the Second Amendment is an individual right or an issue for the State to decide.
It is a very big issue for the American people. Many advocate that the freedom to own a firearm is for the protection of the individual from all that
would do them harm be it a criminal, an invasion by a foreign host or commonly from a tyrannical and corrupt government.
It can be argued that the intent was for every available able-body to be able to respond for an immediate call to arms. That the local constable
should be able to handle crime. But ruling after ruling has been made that police force are not there to protect the individual, but society as a
whole. That personal defense from crime was in the hands of the individual at the time of immediate threat.
Gun advocates and critics alike will need to watch for the results.
Personally, I feel that gun ownership is an individual right. With the anti-gun laws currently in Chicago, carrying personal protection makes you a
criminal before a crime has been committed. The possession of a firearm that is never used is really no different than knowledge of advanced martial
arts which is not a criminal offense.
Just like an incapacitating blow, a firearm does not have to be used in a lethal manner for protection or escape from harm. Likewise a kick or palm
strike in the right location can as fatal as any targeted gunshot to specific locations.
source
Reporting from Washington - When the Supreme Court takes up a challenge this week to Chicago's strict ban on handguns, it will hear two contrasting
visions of how to make the city safer and to protect its residents from gun violence.
On one side are the law-abiding city dwellers who say they need guns to protect themselves from armed thugs...
On the other side are prosecutors and police who say the city's ban on handguns gives them a legal basis for confronting gang members and drug
dealers.
