Court hints it will back individual in new take on right to bear arms

A majority of the Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared ready to embrace, for the first time in the country's history, an interpretation of the Second Amendment -- which says "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" -- that protects the right to own a gun for personal use. That may be the easy part.

The big question: The harder question in the case challenging the District of Columbia's handgun ban -- the toughest in the nation -- is what kind of restrictions the government could constitutionally place, in the name of public safety, on the newly recognized right.

What's at stake: Chief Justice John Roberts said he favored a narrow ruling, one that would not cast doubt on an array of gun-control laws. Nonetheless, a ruling recognizing an individual right in the Second Amendment, which was adopted nearly 200 years ago as part of the Bill of Rights, would be a landmark. It could signal the beginning of an era in which anti-gun regulations are subject to legal challenges.

The core issue: Whether the right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals or only to states and militias.

Today's debate: The argument was intense, running 22 minutes over its allotted hour and 15 minutes. A look at the arguments:

Roberts, for the court: "What's reasonable about a total ban on gun possession?"

Alan Gura, attorney for Dick Heller, who sued: "We have here a ban on all guns for all people in all homes at all times in the nation's capital. That is too broad and too sweeping."

Attorney and Duke Law School professor Walter Dellinger for the District of Columbia: "Here you've got local legislation in response to local needs, and this is local legislation in the seat of the government."

A COURT PRIMER

Q: Who brought the case and why?

A: Dick Anthony Heller, 66, a security guard, sued the District of Colombia after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court. He was one of six D.C. residents who were recruited to file a 2003 lawsuit. Tactically, each represented a distinct facet of the district's population. They included a gay man worried about defending himself and an activist threatened by drug dealers. Heller is the only one remaining on the case.

Q: What's so important about a "well-regulated militia"?

A: This is the heart of the matter. One interpretation holds that gun ownership is a collective right, connected to the formation of a state militia. Gun-control advocates and the District of Columbia adhere to this view. Until now, so have most judges, following the lead of the Supreme Court's last big Second Amendment case, in 1939.

The competing view is that gun ownership is an individual right, and the state militia clause is irrelevant. Heller, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and their allies believe in this view.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by 2 to 1 became the first appellate panel to uphold that interpretation. If the high court agrees, firearms restrictions could be subjected to more rigorous scrutiny by judges protecting something considered key to the Constitution.

Q: Could the court eliminate all gun laws?

A: No. The most zealous gun-ownership advocates concede that certain gun laws can survive.

Q: Is the NRA the driving force behind this challenge?

A: The NRA filed an amicus brief supporting Heller. But libertarian-minded lawyers allied with the Cato Institute organized the lawsuit.

Q: What's the White House's stand?

A: Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a brief supporting an individual-rights interpretation, but in a compromise denounced by gun-rights groups, Clement urged justices to let a lower court decide the fate of the D.C. law. Vice President Dick Cheney, in an extraordinary move, dissented and signed a legal brief demanding that the D.C. law be struck down.

Q: What does Congress want?

A: Fifty-five senators and 250 members of the House of Representatives, a majority of both bodies, signed a brief urging the court to overturn the D.C. ban. Rural Democrats and even some liberals joined the brief.

Q: What's next?

A: More lawsuits are coming. The court is expected to rule in June.

Q: How do I find out more?

A: www.supremecourtus.gov.

NEWS SERVICES