Guns yes, with limits

The U.S. Supreme Court reignited fears of more reckless gun use in urban America in ruling citizens have a basic right to keep a loaded gun at home for self-defense.

The good news in a troubling decision is there appears to be sufficient wiggle room in the court's distinction of guns kept "in defense of hearth and home" and other wording about reasonable gun restrictions.

"Nothing in our opinion," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, for a 5-4 majority, "should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Reasonable gun laws are not clearly defined, so cities such as Seattle have to move forward and let challengers discover exactly which laws might pass muster.

The language about sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings, gives Seattle officials hope their new rule will be fine. A few weeks ago, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels issued an executive order banning guns from Seattle Center, parks, community centers and city-run buildings.

The mayor's action, which takes effect in a few weeks, is not designed to prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves at home. It is a restriction in specific places, on public property and at public gatherings, for the purpose of public safety.

Nickels has been bold on gun control. Washington lawmakers are another matter.

They have punted on reasonable gun control, such as eliminating the nutty gun-show loophole that allows unlicensed dealers and private sellers to sell guns without conducting background checks on purchasers

The Legislature was weak-hearted before the Supreme Court ruling. Cowering in that corner, in light of the latest ruling, can be expected to increase.