In a notable, even startling case that received nationwide attention, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in 2007 that a DC law barring city residents from keeping handguns in their homes violated citizens' Second Amendment right to have guns, aside and apart from service in a militia. This 2–1 decision in Parker v. District of Columbia was notable for two reasons: first, it contradicted four Supreme Court rulings and nearly fifty lower federal court rulings on the meaning of the Second Amendment; and second, if allowed to stand, it would be the first time in American history that a federal court had struck down a gun-control law as a violation of the Second Amendment (in late 2007, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case as District of Columbia v. Heller). Woven throughout the Parker decision were arguments from and references to law journal articles and other cases that cited those articles, which developed and advanced the Parker majority's view of this amendment. If allowed to stand, this decision could have profound policy consequences for American gun laws, not only in the nation's capital but also throughout the country.

A large and increasingly influential body of legal writing has argued for a new and very different interpretation of the Second Amendment's fabled “right to bear arms” – different, that is, from the verdict delivered by the Constitution's founders, history, and the courts.