In case you've been living in a cave, this case is going forward to the Supreme Court due to D.C.'s appeal of the overturn of it's total ban on handguns and of "assembled" rifles and shotguns in the home. This case has the potential to secure the "individual" right of firearms ownership (vs. corporate or militia-based ownership rights) as clearly outlined in the Bill of Rights.
Here's an excerpt:
The District claimed that "keep" means either for an individual to possess guns only for militia purposes, or for a state to "keep up" a militia, a theory the Court of Appeals said "mocks usage, syntax, and common sense." The Court of Appeals added, "Such outlandish views are likely advanced because the plain meaning of 'keep' strikes a mortal blow to the collective right theory."
And of course there's always the "guns in private hands causes violence" b.s.:
As if looking for even more ways to undercut its case, the District also claimed that in the mid-1970s it "sensibly concluded" that gun bans would make the city safer. Of course, as is well known, the city's murder rate tripled within 15 years after D.C. imposed the ban.
Give it a read, and hope the Supreme Court can read as well as the Court of Appeals.