Dick Heller, a longtime resident of the District of Columbia, carries a handgun for his job as a private security guard. But at the end of his shift, he packs up the .38 revolver and stashes it in a vault. He would like to keep a gun for protection at his Capitol Hill home, where he has endured the sound of gunfire for years. But he can't, because D.C. law forbids it. "They give me a gun to protect them," he says of the government, "but I'm a second-class citizen when I finish work."

One of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, the D.C. statute is the focus of a March 18 U.S. Supreme Court hearing that marks the most significant case on gun control in decades. With Heller as plaintiff, it is the first test since 1939 of whether the Second Amendment supports an individual's right to bear arms and not just a state's right to form a militia. It is a crucial distinction. A ruling in favor of the individual right could trigger a wave of constitutional challenges to gun

control laws nationwide. And it could suddenly bring a volatile issue—one particularly uncomfortable for Democrats—into play during a presidential election year.

"It's significant because either it's going to fuel attempts to restrict gun ownership or it could put a constitutional wet blanket on any effort to control gun ownership," says Martin Redish, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University.

For all the passion on both sides of the Second Amendment debate, the Supreme Court has said remarkably little over the years about to whom the right applies. Specifically, the amendment states 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."

For most of American history, courts have interpreted the Second Amendment to apply to the collective right of states to assemble groups of armed citizens, such as the National Guard. Nine federal circuit courts have upheld that position, and the Supreme Court favored it when it last considered the issue in the 1939 case. (While that decision upheld the federal regulation of an individual's use of sawed-off shotguns, it didn't directly address the scope of the Second Amendment.)

The Roanoke Valley delegation, which consists of three Republicans and two Democrats in the Senate and House of Delegates, is split on who should fill the vacancy left in the 23rd Judicial District by Roanoke County General District Court Judge Julian Raney's retirement.

If legislators can't come to a consensus, the circuit judges in the district will appoint someone to fill the vacancy until at least next year.

The two candidates up for consideration, Salem City Councilman Chris Clemens and Roanoke Commonwealth's Attorney Donald Caldwell, will visit the Capitol today for interviews.

In recent years, Republicans held majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly and therefore controlled appointment of judges. That would have hurt Caldwell, an active Democrat, had it been the case again this year.

But Democrats won a slim majority in the Senate last November.

"The House has its prerogative, the Senate has its prerogative, and we've got to come up with a match," said Sen. John Edwards, D-Roanoke.

Asked if he expects the Roanoke Valley delegation to agree on a candidate, Del. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, said: "I don't know the answer to that."

The Roanoke Bar Association and Salem/Roanoke Bar Association have each endorsed Clemens for the job. But that's only one factor that the legislators take into consideration when making a decision.

Edwards, like the other four legislators in the delegation, is complimentary of both candidates, saying that either would make a fine judge. He has so far declined to name which he favors. Instead, he said, he'd take that up with the rest of the delegation after Monday's interviews.

Griffith said he is supporting Clemens for the judgeship, but emphasized that he has no problems with Caldwell.

"The reason is he [Clemens] has been endorsed by the two local bar associations," said Griffith, the House majority leader and member of the House Courts of Justice Committee.

Meanwhile, Del. Onzlee Ware, D-Roanoke, said he's supporting Caldwell because he has more experience than Clemens and because he lives in Roanoke.

"If you look at the last several judges, all were able but not one lived in the city of Roanoke," Ware said. "Roanoke deserves a judge who lives in the city."

Del. William Fralin, R-Roanoke, said he won't decide between the candidates until after their interviews today and added, "I think both of those candidates are well qualified."

But Fralin, who also sits on the House Courts of Justice Committee, said bar association endorsements would carry weight as he sizes up the candidates. All Roanoke Valley judgeships since 2001 have been filled by candidates who received a bar association endorsement.

"The bar association is very important because these are the folks who are very familiar with the people seeking the post," Fralin said.

Ware places less value on the bar endorsements. He said many of its members are corporate lawyers unfamiliar with the court for which they're endorsing a candidate.

"More than half the members who vote in the bar don't practice in General District Court," Ware said.

Freshman Sen. Ralph Smith, R-Botetourt County -- the only non-lawyer in the Roanoke Valley delegation -- is outright skeptical of bar endorsements. He said that because the lawyers in the bar will be practicing before the judge who's appointed, the endorsements represent conflicts of interest for the bars' members.

"If I'm going to serve in your courtroom for the next 20 years, the human nature is, 'How are you going to react to me?' " Smith said. "You can't take that out of it, and that's where I see a conflict of interest. I don't know that it takes an attorney's knowledge to find out who would be a good, fair judge."

That also extends, Smith said, to the 45 General Assembly members who are lawyers by profession.

"I understand it's about 32 percent of the members of the General Assembly who are attorneys, and that's a conflict of interest," Smith said. "In fact, everybody involved in this situation is an attorney except me. I'm not lobbying to say I should pick the judges, but there should be another mechanism" for appointing judges.

Judge Linda Miller was honored for her 25 years of service as a judicial officer by the OCBA Family Law section at their February meeting. Over 200 members of the section attended the monthly meeting held at the Turnip Rose in Orange.

New Jersey Governor Corzine should not legalize same-sex marriage.

AS EXPECTED from a panel stacked with same-sex activists, the Civil Union Commission issued a report last week saying that its members believe civil unions are a failure.

What is their conclusion based on? Seven substantive complaints -- from among the 2,400 same-sex couples who have entered into civil unions in New Jersey. They complain about the failure of New Jersey employers based out of state to provide benefits to partners in civil unions. Those companies say that the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act, which regulates the provision of benefits to employees, does not require them to provide expensive health benefits to same-sex couples.

Activists claim there are more complaints, including insinuations that hospitals have denied visitation – an accusation that an official from the New Jersey Hospital Association insists is absolutely false. Other additional claims are unofficial and unsubstantiated. The majority of complaints cited by the activists do not deal with rights being denied, but rather gripes about how same-sex couples have to explain themselves to other people.

The commission also says that employers in Massachusetts are more likely than those in New Jersey to voluntarily provide health benefits to same-sex couples simply because the law gives their unions the title marriage. This contention is completely anecdotal, as noted in an article last week on the New Jersey State Bar Association Web site.