US Court Appears Unlikely to Challenge Individual Gun Ownership

The US supreme court today reviewed US gun laws for the first time in almost 70 years and signaled it will come down in favor of the constitutional right of Americans to own weapons.

But the judges appeared to be divided on whether to uphold a ban on handguns in Washington DC, which has the toughest gun control laws in the country.

The nine judges are being asked to choose between Washington, once the murder capital of the US and which has had a handgun ban in place since 1976, and a courthouse security guard who claims the right to have a handgun in his home, in a high-crime area, to protect his family.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has frequently held the balance of power in the court, said today that the constitution's second amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." Constitutional lawyers have spent decades arguing about the exact meaning and intention of the second amendment, which 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."

Gun opponents argue that the second amendment provided for a collective right to bear arms, not an individual. But groups such as the powerful National Rifle Association claim that individuals have the right.

Kennedy's remarks indicated he subscribed to the NRA view.

If the supreme court rules the way that Kennedy suggests, it has potential ramifications for gun control laws throughout the US, not just DC. While there is a general acceptance that some gun laws have to remain, such as a ban on convicted criminals owning machine-guns, other controls are regarded as less clear-cut, and a supreme court ruling could see state laws being challenged.

People had queued up outside the court for two days to hear the historic argument. Outside the court, advocates for and against held noisy demonstrations. Members of one group chanted "guns kill" as members of another shouted "more guns, less crime."

Residents of DC can keep rifles and shotguns at home but not handguns, which can be more easily hidden by criminals in jackets and trousers. The mayor of DC, Adrian Fenty, claims that the ban has saved many lives.

Sympathy for his position seemed to be expressed by Justice Stephen Breyer who suggested that Washington's public safety concerns could be relevant in any debate over gun ownership. "Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer said.

The justices heard arguments from lawyers and other interest groups. The court is not due to give its ruling until June.

The last supreme court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in a case which involved a sawn-off shotgun.

The court decision to review the issue follows an appeals court ruling last year that Washington's handgun ban is illegal.