Interesting Application of District of Columbia v. Heller

Some of you may not be familiar with the Heller case; it was the Supreme Court's attempt to, for the first time really, clarify the scope of the 2nd Amendment. At issue was whether or not the language of the amendment suggests a personal right to bear arms or is solely intended to allow possession by state militias. In high school, I argued that the text suggests a militia oriented interpretation and with militias being replaced by the national guard, the amendment was moot (in the name of defending an assault weapons ban). I've since come to the more radical interpretation that it does indeed preserve a public right, since the only right to bear arms that matters is the right to bear them against a tyrannical government (a position that wouldn't have been lost on the Founders given their then recent war against a tyrannical government), but that's neither here nor there. As it turns out, the conservative Court found a right to personal possession, largely in the name of self-defense. Their decision is now finding a unique application in a drug case where the defendant was given a mandatory minimum sentence of 55 years because of his (alleged) possession of a fire arm during the course of routine, hand-to-hand, marijuana sales, although the weapon played no part in the actual sale. This is what the defense wrote in their memorandum:

"In light of the Supreme Court’s broad and forceful recognition of the right of all citizens under the Second Amendment to possess firearms to effectuate 'the inherent right of self-defense,' District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct 2783, 2817 (2008), the extreme sentence imposed upon Angelos for gun possession are now clearly unconstitutional and his 55-year sentence must be at least partially vacated."

Now we will wait to see if the courts will accept this reasoning or carve out yet another 'drug exception' to the Bill of Rights. I'll keep you posted.