On November 20, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear a case involving the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the first time in nearly 70 years. This case may very well yield the most significant decision handed down by the Supreme Court since the 1976 Roe vs. Wade ruling on the legality of abortion.

At the heart of this case, and the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns from which it emerged, is the vague wording of the Second Amendment. It states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

What does this mean? Does every U.S. citizen have the right to keep guns at home, or only members of the aforementioned “well regulated militia”? And even if one side is proven “more legal”, does that necessarily make it “more right”?

The central basis of the argument for gun control is gun violence. If guns are harder to buy – or outlawed outright – there should then be a subsequent decrease in crimes committed with guns.

Unfortunately, there are several flaws in this hypothesis.

Anyone who uses or plans to use a firearm in an act of violence is already a criminal, so there really exists no deterrent to obtaining a gun illegally. In fact, there are significant benefits for criminals who obtain their guns outside the law.

When a firearm is obtained legally through a licensed dealer, there are background checks, paperwork, permits and waiting periods. All of these processes are designed to link a gun to its owner, so it would be advantageous for a criminal to bypass all of these steps to buy an untraceable gun on the black market.

The result would be that law-abiding people are left unprotected in their homes while armed criminals roam the streets. Gun bans and strict gun control often only hurt the people who follow the laws, not the ones who will actually commit violent crimes.

Certainly, not just anyone who comes in off the street should be able to throw down some cash and walk away with a Glock. There can be a middle ground. American citizens should be able to purchase and keep guns to protect themselves and their families, but there also should be some control, so not just anyone can buy a firearm.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear this case in March 2008, and truthfully, the verdict is, at this moment, unpredictable. The only question you need to ask yourself is, “Do I feel lucky?”

Well, do ya, punk?