Throughout history, there has been some controversy over whether or not the Second Amendment to the Constitution does indeed give that right to the people.

The text of the Second Amendment reads that "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."

Some scholars have claimed that this only gives states the right to organize militias for self-defense. However, it seems that many of the justices are leaning toward the alternate view.

The issue currently in question is a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. Some of the members of the court were skeptical that the law could be upheld in light of the Second Amendment.

Chief Justice John Roberts was quick to counter the militia-related view of the text. He rhetorically asked, "If it is limited to state militias, why would they say 'the right of the people'?"

A key swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, also hinted at viewing the amendment as an individual right. He claimed that "there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way."

Along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia, Roberts and Kennedy will likely form a majority of the court that will potentially overturn D.C.'s longtime gun ban.

Furthermore, a precedent that recognizes an individual's right to own a gun will be set like never before. Without question, the intent of the Bill of Rights is to address certain indisputable rights that are meant for the individual. At the time of the ratification of these amendments, many people in the young U.S. owned firearms, and that individual right was never in dispute. Clearly, the intent of the Founding Fathers was to allow people to own firearms for self-defense and other purposes.

It does not make sense to ban firearms in the name of reducing crime. If a criminal will break the law using a gun, that person will not worry about possessing a firearm and violating the ban.

However, law-abiding citizens will be the victims, and those people who would never commit a crime with a gun will respect the law.

So in essence, only people willing to break the law anyway will possess guns.

I hope that a few of the other justices will see the Second Amendment as a clear individual right and establish a strong precedent that is plainly laid out in the Constitution.

This case should be open and shut. However, political persuasions have taken hold of Supreme Court Justices in recent decades, and common sense has been thrown out the window. With any luck, the members of the court will see this as an obvious right that the people have and overturn the ban.

• Column: Celebrate victories of summer grads
• Tech Department of Recreational Sports
• Blacksburg police make narcotics arrest