Court seems ready to affirm right to own gun in D.C.

WASHINGTON — A majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to embrace, for the first time in the country's history, an interpretation of the Second Amendment that protects the right to own a gun for personal use.

That may be the easy part.

The harder question in the case challenging Washington, D.C.'s, handgun ban is what kind of restrictions the government could constitutionally place, in the name of public safety, on the newly recognized right.

The argument was lively and intense, running 22 minutes over its allotted hour and 15 minutes. Despite "starting afresh," as Chief Justice John Roberts put it, on a subject the court had not addressed since 1939, the justices appeared at least as well informed as the lawyers on minute details of English and American legal history.

There was a good deal of linguistic dissection of the Second Amendment's text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Walter Dellinger, arguing for the District of Columbia, told the court near the beginning of his argument, "The amendment's first clause confirms that the right is militia-related."

The district is appealing a ruling by the federal appeals court here last year that adopted the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment and declared the handgun-ban unconstitutional.

Dellinger said that at the time the Second Amendment was drafted, "the people" and "the militia" were essentially synonymous; therefore, he said, the amendment, its two clauses properly interpreted, gave people the right to own weapons only in connection with their militia service. This assertion quickly ran into objections.

"Doesn't the argument that the people and the militia were one and the same cut against you," Roberts asked. If the militia included everyone, he continued, "doesn't the preamble that you rely on not really restrict the right much at all?"

Dellinger replied that the focus should be on "the scope and nature of the right that the people have." He added: "It is a right to participate in the common defense."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote may be crucial to the outcome of the case, disagreed. The purpose of the first clause, with its militia reference, was simply to "reaffirm the right to have a militia," he said, while the second made clear that individuals had the right to own guns.

The justices didn't clarify what laws might survive if the 32-year-old D.C. gun ban is struck down, but the general notion of "reasonableness" kept recurring.

"We give leeway to cities and states to work out what's reasonable in light of their problems," Justice Stephen Breyer noted.

Since 1976, the District of Columbia has banned handgun ownership except for retired D.C. police officers. The district also requires other firearms to be kept disassembled or with trigger locks on.

"We have here a ban on all guns for all people in all homes at all times in the nation's capital," attorney Alan Gura stated. "That is too broad and too sweeping under any review."

Gura represents Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. resident who sued the district in 2003. Heller, 66, a federal guard, said he feels unsafe because he can't keep his guns stored at his home.

District officials call the gun restrictions reasonable and necessary for public safety. In 1974, shortly before the district imposed the ban, handguns were used in 155 of the 285 homicides committed in D.C. In 2007, the city reported 181 homicides, nearly 80 percent of which were committed with guns.

A ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that determines that the Second Amendment language protects an individual rather than a collective right would be a landmark decision. By itself, however, it wouldn't invalidate the numerous local, state and federal weapons restrictions now on the books.

The Supreme Court also will have to set the standard by which various gun laws, including the district's, will be judged. Gun-control advocates want gun laws upheld if they're reasonable, which is a relatively low courtroom standard.

A ruling is expected by June.

Material from The Associated Press is included in this report.