I listened to NRA Radio this morning, and lawyer Stephen Halbrook was on discussing the Seegars case out of DC. You may recall that this was a lawsuit limited to declaring the Second Amendment protects the right of residents of DC to own a useable firearm in their home. That's it. They were not asking for carry rights. There was no complicating issue about whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. The case was simple. Does the Second Amendment prohibit the federal government (DC is federal) from banning firearms in the home. Well, they lost (in front of a Republican appointed Judge). On appeal, the DC Circuit Court of appeals held that there was no standing. That is, because the plaintiffs were not willing to smuggle a firearm into the district, admit to breaking the law in a court pleading, and then have a SWAT team crash through their front door, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiffs have no standing to pursue the case (other circuits have ruled that one need not actually be arrested to have standing). Judge (now Chief Justice) Roberts was at the time one of the dissenting judges on the panel who voted to rehear the case en banc (meaning all the judges on the circuit would hear the case and then rule - it is heard initially only by three judges, it is reheard by all only in rare circumstances of great importance). The plaintiff's appealed to the US Supreme Court, which recently declined to hear the case. Justice Roberts abstained from the vote, probably due to his earlier involvement in the case. Well, there it is. Several years wasted on a clean case and nothing to show for it. It could be a good thing, though, to have a case like this come up after one or two more Justices with an "original intent" or "strict construction" view are appointed to the bench (as if there is any Constitution left with a "lax construction").