c news chief correspondent pete williams joins us from federal court and has more this morning. pete, good morning. >> reporter: what did the decision two years ago make? it was a widely used category of weapons for self-defense in the home that immediately led to a challenge to an almost identical law in chicago and a similar one in oak park, illinois. so the question here is because that decision involving the district of columbia was limited just to a federal city, does the constitution second amendment right to keep and bear arms apply nationwide? it may surprise you that the bill of rights don't automatically apply to the states, but that's been our history. one by one the supreme court has applied almost all of them but not the second amendment. it did appear after the oral argument today that the supreme court, at least a majority, is prepared to say yes, the second amendment does apply to the states. then the question will be, what does that mean? does that mean, for example, it's just the right to have handguns, that the city can't ban handguns in the home, or is it some

pete williams joins us live from the supreme court with the latest. pete, tell us more about this chicago gun ban and what lawyers are saying for and against it today. >> sure, jim. two things. first of all, we heard this gun case today. secondly, the court has just handed down its decision from chief justice roberts, declining to take up the case of gay marriage. first on the gun ban, you're right. two years ago, the u.s. supreme court struck down the handgun ban here in washington, d.c. saying that people in the district had a right under the second amendment to have a handgun at home for self-defense. but the court said this decision is limited just to the district because it's a federal city. we're not saying whether it applies nationwide. that was the question today. does the second amendment apply to the state? the bill of rights don't automatica states. that's the case. after listening to the arguments today, it does seem safe to conclude that the justices will say yes, the second amendment does apply to the states. that will undoubtedly st down

pete williams, nbc news at the supreme court. >> i'm not a lawyer, but i occasionally play one on tv.umble opinion the case will not turn on the commerce clause, but the power to tax. in a previous life i wrote tax law and i can assure you there is no question that the federal government has the power to tax. the obama administration doesn't like to call the penalty for not having health insurance a tax, but that is exactly what it is. it is enforced by the irs and that's what they will call it in court. they will simply argue that having health insurance allows you a small tax credit that you won't get if you don't have health insurance. and a minimum of five justices on the supreme court, if it ever gets to them, will see it that way. >>> coming up, sarah palin releases a target list of democrats to go after in the next election. in marking the districts she uses gun cross-hairs. and in a separate message she tells supporters to reload. melissa harris-lacewell joins me with more on what's wrong with this disturbing picture. he wind on the plains. there's a hospital where technology

nbc justice correspondent pete williams is at the court for us this morning. pete, this has the potential to have wide ramifications, i suppose, for gun control laws on the state and local level. >> reporter: yes, and maybe even beyond guns. savannah, i think it surprises many people that the bill of rights, including the second amendment, never was intended to apply automatically to the states. and that's the question today. does the second amendment apply to the states? it was just two years ago that the supreme court struck down a strict handgun ban in washington, d.c. and the issue then was, does the second amendment apply in a federal city like washington and the answer was yes. now the question is, does it apply nationwide? a group of gun owners and people who want to own guns in chicago and nearby oak park, illinois, are challenging the strict handgun bans there. but, savannah, depending on how the court rules here, this case could have wider implications beyond just guns. even though that itself is very significant, it could also decide the future of st

i want to turn to nbc's chief justice correspondent pete williams. heard a lot about these lawsuits state attorneys generals are filing. some have filed or plan on filing. all republican attorney generals in virginia, we've heard about south carolina, florida, about nine states maybe will get up to 13. explain what the lawsuit is. what standing they think they have. >> basically their argument is against the part of the bill that basically says if you don't have insurance you have to buy. >> the mandate. >> and if you don't buy it you get taxed. >> okay. >> their argument is the constitution doesn't give congress -- >> you said taxed, not fined. >> i'll get to that in a second. the constitution gives congress very broad powers to regulate commerce. here's the objection. if you're in the -- >> so-called commerce clause. >> yeah. if you're in the stream of commerce, then congress can regulate what you do. their argument is if you're outside the stream, you're not doing anything -- >> other than living. >> you don't have any insurance. >> you're just a

for an overview, our correspondent is pete williams. >> we simply can't have washington make the ruless and counting. >> an unprecedented expansion. >> the individual mandate held unconstitutional. >> reporter: attorneys general from all over the nation nearly all of them republican are challenging the health care bill in court. >> we are challenging the mandate that anybody has to buy a health care policy or suffer a policy. >> reporter: the new law does something the government has never done before, requiring people to buy something sold by private companies. the constitution gives congress broad powers to regulate commerce, that gives dong power to regulate how cars are made and sold, congress can't make you buy one. >> congress can no more make you buy insurance than make you buy a gm car to help the government. >> but supporters of the law says congress has broad power to regulate things that end up having an effect on the economy. it adds up when people without insurance go to the emergency room for their health care. >> it's part of the whole scheme of things to say that, you k

i want to get to pete williams first, who has some breaking news on james o'keefe. you remember him, the pimp, the photographer or videographer, if you want to call him that, pete, what's going on? >> reporter: he gained notoriety last year with the videos he did about a.c.o.r.n. in which he posed as a pimp. but this is a case from january when government officials say he and three other men entered a federal building in new orleans under false pretenses. it's not about these videos, but these are the videos that have made him famous, we've not seen the videos they tried to take in new orleans. but in january they entered the office of senator mary landreau in an apparent stunt to try to embarrass senator landreau's staff on i guess on the premise that her staff was not answering telephone complaints about the health care bill. now, we understand that they have agreed to plead guilty to reduced federal charges. just a short time ago, the federal government unsealed new charges against the four. charges, charging them simply with entering a federal building under fals

i talked to pete williams here, who is a pretty straight-down-the-line reporter on this.ows this stuff, he said there's a possibility you might have a case. it may be remote, however. what's your sense of the plausibility of you, of you getting served, going to the supreme court and winning your case with a 5-4, at least, decision? >> well, chris, i think we have a very strong case. as i said, in the past 15 years, the supreme court has scaled back congress when they've tried to inject themselves into purely state matters and using the commerce clause. a perfect example was the morrison case with the violence, the violence against women act. another case was lopez, where they tried to criminalize purely state behavior within a state. so this over the past 15 years, the supreme court has scaled back and said to congress, when you try and go after activity that doesn't cross state lines and when you try to go after activity such as here, which is inactivity, here the federal government is punishing people for not buying a product. they're punishing them for not getting into