On March 18, the Supreme Court of the United States held arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, to answer whether, in the Court’s words, the Second Amendment protects the “rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia [] who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.” Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) told the Supreme Court that the answer is a resounding, “Yes!”

Dick Anthony Heller is a District of Columbia special police officer who is permitted to carry a handgun on duty but is barred, by Washington’s anti-gun laws—the nation’s toughest—from having one at home for self-defense. When his request to do so was denied, he sued, claiming the right, under the Constitution, “to keep and bear arms.” After the district court dismissed his case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed. In November 2007, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Left-of-center groups, such as the ACLU, the NAACP, and the American Bar Association (ABA); Bill Clinton’s Attorney General Janet Reno and other Clinton officials; scores of liberal college professors and agenda-driven, ivory-tower think tanks; and the mayors of America’s most dangerous cities filed briefs arguing that what most citizens know about why the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is not so!

That is not all; they also said, “the mere presence of or access to firearms increases fatality rates”; firearms are “most likely to kill innocent people”; “handguns are not an effective means of self defense”; “handguns pose a particular public health risk”; and, “handguns in the home pose a unique danger to children and youth,” thus, regardless of what the Second Amendment says, the Court must uphold Washington, D.C.’s gun laws!

MSLF is not new to this fight. In 1989, MSLF’s client, Montana rancher John Shuler who killed a grizzly bear in self-defense was accused of violating the Endangered Species Act. Federal lawyers argued and the government ruled that, although Shuler feared “death or serious bodily injury”—the test for a self-defense claim—he had no right to arm himself, leave his house, and enter what the government called “the zone of imminent danger.” It issued that ruling despite an 1895 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, that, “Where an attack is made with murderous intent . . . [,] the person attacked is under no duty to flee. He may stand his ground, and, if need be, kill his adversary.”

Moreover, the government’s view of Shuler’s right to arm himself and confront danger conflicted with the ethos of the American West, a vast area from the Great Plains to the Cascade Range, from Canada to Mexico. That is one of the reasons why MSLF fought so hard for Shuler. Ultimately, MSLF won that fight and vindicated the right of Shuler, and all Americans, to arm themselves and confront danger, even from federally protected grizzly bears!

That is also why MSLF quickly jumped into the battle over the meaning of the Second Amendment now being fought in the Supreme Court. Not only is MSLF a veteran of past such battles, MSLF brings a unique perspective.

In the West, virtues of individualism, independence, self-sufficiency, and self-governance yield, not only a strong distrust of government, but also a citizenry that forms the bedrock of America’s gun culture. Their State constitutions go further than does the U.S. Constitution as to their right to “keep and bear arms”; their laws include “make my day,” “castle doctrine,” and “stand your ground” provisions; and their supreme courts interpret broadly the right of self-defense outside the home. Little wonder then, that the story that captivated the Nation last December of a voluntary security guard who saved scores of churchgoers by shooting a heavily armed killer took place in the heart of the West—in Colorado Springs, Colorado. “[I]t was me, the gunman, and God,” she humbly proclaimed.

One lesson westerners learned from September 11, 2001, is that they are most responsible for defending themselves and loved ones, as one U.S. Senator bravely admitted in 2007. In fact, in a 2005 ruling that originated in the West, the Supreme Court held that an individual has no right to police protection, even when police are aware of danger to that individual. Finally, for westerners, Washington, D.C.’s gun laws prove the truth of the ubiquitous western bumper sticker, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” For while Washington has had, since 1975, the Nation’s toughest gun control laws and boasts more law enforcement officers per capita than any other city, it often wins the title of the Nation’s “Murder Capital.”

MSLF told the Supreme Court that, with the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers sought to guarantee all citizens the means to defend themselves and loved ones from dangers and to protect their country from tyranny. Moreover, westerners view that right in the same way as did the Founding Fathers. For them, the right is neither a quaint anachronism nor an historical artifact; instead, it is a key component of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights and a deeply imbued ingredient of the cultural heritage of the American West. Finally, it is a right that is both individual and fundamental.

This battle is not just about the Second Amendment. For decades, the Supreme Court has found new, never-before-recognized rights hidden in the shadows—what justices call the penumbras—of the Constitution. We must do all we can to ensure that the rights spelled out in the bright light of the Constitution since 1791 remain inviolate. With your help, we will!