Oral arguments are to be heard before the court on Tuesday March 18th. Not surprisingly this is the only case on the docket that day.

This website has links to the merit briefs of both sides, as well as all of the amicus briefs that have been filed:

Supreme Court Preview: March 2008 Merit Briefs (ABA Division for Public Education)

Approximately 19 briefs in support of the petitioner (DC), 47 briefs in support of the respondent (Heller), and 1 brief in support of reversal (of the Court of Appeals decision) submitted by 18 members of the US House of Representatives (listed below):

Representative Robert A. Brady (PA-01)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (MI-14)
Representative Danny K. Davis (IL-07)
Representative Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Representative Sam Farr (CA-17)
Representative Chaka Fattah (PA-02)*
Representative Al Green (TX-09)
Representative Raśl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Representative Michael Honda (CA-15)
Representative Zoe Lofgren (CA-16)
Representative Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04)
Representative Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Representative James P. Moran (VA-08)
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)
Representative Bobby L. Rush (IL-01)
Representative Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Representative Lynn C. Woolsey (CA-06)
Representative Albert R. Wynn (MD-04)

I also found it most interesting that one brief in support of Heller was submitted by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc, (AAPS) whose mission statement includes
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons,
Inc. (“AAPS”) is a non-profit, national group of
thousands of physicians founded in 1943. AAPS has
physician members who rely on their freedom to own
and carry firearms to guard against criminal activity,
which includes attempts to break into their offices to
obtain controlled substances or potential attacks by
patients on the physicians attempting to help them.

I wonder if this group of physicians will be in hot water with the AMA since their stance clearly is against AMA policy?

Reading further into the AAPS brief I found this little nugget:

Constitutional law – specifically, the Second
Amendment – cannot depend on politicized views of
medicine. Amici curiae briefs submitted for Petitioners
by the American Public Health Association
(APHA) and the American Academy of Pediatricians
(AAP) (the “Petitioners’ Medical Amici”) insist that
medical evidence supports gun control. AAP claims
that firearms are a medical “contagion”, and that
“children cannot be taught gun safety.”
AAP Brief at
35, 12. In fact, medical professionals have no more
qualifications or basis to opine about the Second
Amendment than anyone else. The attempt to
shroud political gun control arguments in the white
coat of physicians and public health officials is utterly
baseless, and constitutional law should not be influenced
by it.
At least one group of MD's realize that they have no expertise in the areas of gun safety and gun control, and that they should not be trying to influence policy in this area.

I think my own children would argue the point that
children can not be taught gun safety.
Sorry for being so long winded.