D.C.'s gun ban gets its day in court

Despite mountains of scholarly research, enough books to fill a library shelf and decades of political battles about gun control, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity this week that is almost unique for a modern court when it examines whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.

The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment's meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.

The Second Amendment
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.

From the English Bill of Rights in 1689:
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Let's further compare the English Bill of Rights to our own Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

English Bill of Rights:
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
US Amendment #1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
English Bill of Rights:
And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.
US Amendment #1:
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
English Bill of Rights:
That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
US Amendment #3:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
English Bill of Rights:
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
US Amendment #8:
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

The English Bill of Rights and the US Constitution, are virtually identical. The EBR has clearly stated that the people, "may have arms for their defence". Here is the context of that phrase from the EBR:

Declaration:
"a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:"

"By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;"

That:

"the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"

So, with the Amendments to the US Constitution(US Bill of Rights), being almost identical to the English Bill of Rights, one could conclude that the intent of the Second Amendment is to, in fact, award citizens the right to privately bear arms. Not to mention that, since 1791, average ordinary citizens of the US, have in fact, bore arms, privatley! The precident has long been set.