Supreme Court Rules Individuals Have Right to Own Guns

The 5-4 vote struck down a Washington, D.C., law banning hand guns. It was the first time the Supreme Court has conclusively interpreted the "right to bear arms."

The Second 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 case brought before the court required the justices decide if the amendment protects the rights of individuals to own guns, or if that right is only for those involved in a state militia. The court determined the amendment does apply to individuals.

Washington, D.C.'s gun ban

	D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty wanted the Supreme Court to uphold the city's ban on hand guns.

In 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled the law unconstitutional, arguing that that the Second Amendment protects an individual's rights to bear arms.

The city appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court usually takes up cases addressing legal issues that cannot be clearly resolved in lower courts.

Most lower court judges in recent decades have ruled that the Second Amendment protects a right to arms associated with service in a state militia, such as a the National Guard.

The Supreme Court's ruling

	Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

The decision also struck down the city's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled. The ruling did support the licensing of guns.

Scalia wrote that the court was sympathetic to Washington's problems with guns and crime, but banning handguns could not be the solution.

Scalia was joined in the majority decision by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, all considered conservative justices, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a swing vote between the conservative and more liberal sides of the court.

In the dissenting argument, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that "the Second Amendment's language, while speaking of a 'militia,' says nothing of 'self-defense.'"
He also wrote the majority justices "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers [of the Constitution] made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter also dissented.
Justice Breyer expressed concerns that the ruling would lead to constitutional challenges to gun laws across the country.

Response to the ruling

	Supporters of gun control regulations argue that fewer restrictions on guns will mean higher crime rates.

The National Rifle Association's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre called the decision "a great moment in American history. It vindicates individual Americans all over this country who have always known that this is their freedom worth protecting," in a statement on the group's Web site.

Gun control and the right to bear arms is a highly politicized issue. President Bush's press secretary said Thursday the president "strongly agrees with the historic decision."

The 2008 presidential candidates also weighed in. Republican Senator John McCain issued a statement in support of the decision and said other cities, like Chicago, that have banned handguns are also in violation of the Constitution.

Democratic Senator Barack Obama issued a statement saying he agrees the Second Amendment protects the right for individuals to bear arms, but emphasized the need for reasonable regulation of that right.

What's next?

	Gun laws across the country could face new legal challenges because of the ruling.

Only Chicago has a handgun ban as restrictive as Washington's, but the cities of New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Detroit are bracing for challenges.

R. Ted Cruz , former solicitor general of Texas, told the NewsHour he doesn't believe the ruling is that sweeping.

"The court said there are other reasonable regulations. The example it used is the prohibition on felons possessing firearms. And the court said those are presumptively legal," said Cruz.

Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that the ruling left many questions about scope and other gun control laws.

"Since this case represents this court's first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field," Scalia wrote.