In what could be one of the defining decisions in a generation, the Supreme Court this week will take up a 32-year old Washington, D.C. law that bans owning a handgun, the strictest such law in the country. And, as the Washington Post noted yesterday, the resulting decision could finally offer a definition for the Second Amendment, something the court has failed to do in the past.

The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, seeks to answer not only whether Washington can have a gun ban, but in fact how far the Second Amendment goes. The gun ban itself is subject to debate: Crime has gone down since the ban was enacted, but nearly 200 murders still happen inside D.C.'s borders every year, and police confiscated nearly 3,000 guns last year despite the ban. Proponents, including virtually every elected leader in the city, say the ban's removal would cause a sharp spike in crime, both in Washington and in neighboring Maryland and Virginia.

The suit could have ramifications far beyond Washington. "This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to be interpreting the meaning of an important provision of the Constitution unencumbered by precedent," Georgetown University law expert Randy Barnett told the Post. None of the nine justices currently on the court has ever ruled on a Second Amendment case, meaning none has said much on the record on the subject.

In fact, the last time the Court ruled on a Second Amendment case was in the 1930s, an instance in which Chief Justice John Roberts said the Court "sidestepped" actually ruling on the underlying amendment. In striking down the D.C. gun ban last year, U.S. District Court Judge Laurence Silberman wrote the amendment grants an individual rights, as other amendments do. Opponents of that ruling say the amendment grants access to arms only to military organizations.

Those arguing for Washington benefited from a government brief, written by Solicitor General Paul Clement, backing the gun ban. The Bush Administration said overturning that ban would imperil other federal gun laws, including those banning ownership of machine guns. That position was opposed by gun rights advocates, including Vice President Cheney, who took the unusual step of signing an amicus brief opposing the administration in which he serves.

Among the presidential candidates, John McCain holds the same position as Cheney and gun-rights advocates, but he has not focused on gun rights as much as other candidates did. While Mitt Romney was professing to shoot varmints and Mike Huckabee was seen hunting with his dog, McCain said he doesn't own a gun now. McCain calls gun ownership a "fundamental, individual Constitutional right," though he supported background checks at gun shows in the late 1990's.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have spoken less on guns and gun control, though they have generally voted for restrictions on automatic weapons and against immunity for gun manufacturers. Clinton has gone farther, co-sponsoring a bill in 2000 that would have required licenses and registration for handguns.

Should the issue become a major one in the presidential contest, Democrats will likely tread lightly while Republicans will focus on the individual rights concept. Recent wedge issues, like immigration, have failed to provide the GOP with any serious electoral victories, and some even argue that issues like same-sex marriage bans, which were on ballots across the country in 2004, didn't help Republicans all that much. In 1994, though, backlash against President Bill Clinton's moves to tighten gun control was blamed for many Democratic losses in that year's elections.