Top US court to rule on handgun ban
The United States’ top court said tonight it will decide whether the city of Washington can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to bear arms in nearly 70 years.
The Supreme Court justices’ decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.
The government of Washington is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the US constitution.
The main issue before the justices is whether the constitution protects an individual’s right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
Gun-control advocates say the constitution was intended to insure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the constitution gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defence.
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in US v Miller, which involved a sawn-off shotgun. That decision supported the collective rights view, but did not squarely answer the question in the view of many constitutional scholars. Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the constitution was “still very much an open issue” .
Alan Gura, a lawyer for the Washington residents who challenged the ban, said he was pleased that the justices were considering the case.
“We believe the Supreme Court will acknowledge that, while the use of guns can be regulated, a complete prohibition on all functional firearms is too extreme,” Mr Gura said.
“It’s time to end this unconstitutional disaster. It’s time to restore a basic freedom to all Washington residents.”
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Centre to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Supreme Court should “reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety.”
The Second Amendment of the Constitution, which speaks of bearing arms, 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.”
Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation’s capital.
The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because “handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia”.
The district, the political district that comprises Washington, is making several arguments in defence of the restriction, including claims that the Second Amendment involves militia service. It also said the ban is constitutional because it limits the choice of firearms, but does not prohibit residents from owning any guns at all. Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled. Businesses may have guns for protection.
Chicago, Illinois, has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as Washington’s.
Four states – Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York – urged the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten “all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms”.
Although the city’s murder rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, Washington still ranks among the nation’s highest murder cities, with 169 killings in 2006.
