Isn't it ironic.

Second Amendment advocates and gun owners may have the District of Columbia to thank if the highest court in the land finally rules next term that the Constitution protects an individual's right "to keep and bear Arms."  What a strange thank you that would be.

After all, D.C. is no friend to gun rights.  Not only is Washington home to our nation's capital, it's also the American city that imposes the strictest restrictions on firearms of any kind, including a more than 30-year-old complete ban on even possessing a handgun.  But it's because of that law -- and the District's continued efforts to uphold it -- that the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, for the first time in nearly 70 years, will likely hear a Second Amendment case next term.

Indeed, not only are legal experts touting the constitutional challenge to D.C.'s handgun ban as the silver bullet that will force the High Court to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own and possess a gun, but the District put to rest any doubts about the case making it to One First Street when the City filed papers last week stating its intent to appeal.  And, while it's possible the justices could refuse to hear the case -- thus, letting the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stand -- how can they, really?

As the District told the High Court, the D.C. Circuit's decision "mark[ed] the first time in the Nation's history that any appellate court has struck down a law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment."  Moreover, not only does the case "involve fundamental questions of how the Second Amendment should be interpreted," but the ruling conflicts with the decisions of "other federal Courts of Appeals and with many State courts of last resort," not to mention the District's own highest court -- meaning the District itself faces "conflicting judgments on the constitutionality" of its handgun ban.

And, none of this is to mention the fact that, when the City's petition for the High Court to hear the case reaches the justices, it will not only be unopposed but supported by the challengers who won below.  In their own filing last week, the D.C. residents who successfully challenged the handgun ban said that they "look[ed] forward to supporting" the petition for review.  In fact, echoing the District's filing, the challengers agreed that the "case presents an issue of exceptional importance," on which the High Court "has issued no direct guidance," and which has "profoundly split" other federal courts of appeal, as well as state courts of last resort."

Thus, everyone who is anyone has been telling the justices that this is landmark litigation on an important constitutional question that is unclear and has divided other courts and judges across the country.  In other words, this case hits the bulls-eye for decision by the nine black robes who have the final say on what "We the People" mean in the seven Articles and 27 Amendments that comprise our Constitution.

Which brings us back to why some thanks is still owed to D.C.

Quite simply, it was anything but a foregone conclusion that the District would actually appeal its loss to the highest court in the land.  As a Washington Post editorial explained in its opening line, "The District's decision ... to seek Supreme Court review of a court opinion striking down its gun control laws is fraught with risk." 

The editorial went on to note that the "idea that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms is not exclusive to right-wing gun nuts....  Some of the brightest liberal minds in the legal community have come -- albeit reluctantly -- to the same conclusion."  Thus, the District is risking -- for the entire anti-gun movement -- the possibility that the Supreme Court could "broadly ... deliver an opinion applicable across the country," undermining gun control laws everywhere.

There is no doubt that many ardent gun controllers advised the District to throw in the towel to avoid a more significant defeat on a bigger stage.  But, in the end, D.C.'s mayor and attorneys decided to gamble that they could pull the trigger and convince five justices that the Second Amendment doesn't confer any "right of the people" in a final game of legal Russian roulette.  So here we go targeting the Supremes.