groups

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

That is great. Now the question has been answered. We have the right to bear arms for our protection as well as for sport. We are, however, still under state laws requiring registration, and restrictions for some with mental problems or who have criminal records. Owning a handgun, rifle or shot gun should be no problem for the average citizen. I have a real problem with people owning AK47 or other assault weapons. They simply are not necessary and the line must be drawn there. Properly handled firearms are safe. Unfortunately they get into the hands of the wrong people and disaster occurs. Responsible gun owners know this and take steps to secure their guns. I believe the Supreme Court made the right decision.

It's about damn time! You don't suppose the Supreme Court is finally on the right track where firearms are concerned. It is my firm belief that those who commit crimes wherin a firearm is displayed or used should suffer the full weight of the law.
Those citizens who use a firearm in defense of their lives or the lives of others, or protect their homes and families should be considered to be within the law.
I further believe that ex felons should not be allowed to possess or carry firearms. They have demonstrated, by their violation of law, they have not the responsibility to do so.
Just one other thing. I care not whether a criminal is over, or under the age of eighteen. If they are old enough to commit the crime, they are old enough to pay the price. If that means they are shot and killed while they are doing a home invasion, or a holdup then so be it. The only possible exception would be if the child were younger than the age of reason.
That is to say nine to ten years of age.That is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong.

I'm sure the families of the six dead people in Kentucky will be ecstatic about this ruling.

Oh Geez! If they had guns, they probably wouldn't be dead today! Blame a piece of machinery for the insanity of a human! Criminals don't obey the law! Gun control only takes guns out of the law abiding citizen's hands! Let's sue Colt because Joey blew Jimmy's head off with a gun! All sounds rational to me!

Finally the Supreme Court did something right!

I don't think it is enough. I think each state needs to change some laws now. For example on another thread somewhere I talked about the law in Georgia. If someone enters your home and you shoot them, YOU are in trouble. It does not matter if they are injured or killed. The homeowner is the one who gets screwed UNLESS they have a gun or knife. Makes no sense to me at all.

Well said Loko! I ws just disappointed that the vote was so close....phew!

goo decision in my book.

(Oops) good