WASHINGTON — A U.S. appeals court on Friday struck down a strict ban on owning firearms in the nation's capital, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to rule on the scope of the 2nd Amendment and whether it expressly protects a person's right to own a gun.
Lawyers on both sides of the gun-control debate called the decision significant: It was the first time a federal appeals court has voided a gun law on the basis of the 2nd Amendment, they said.
For The Record
Los Angeles Times Monday March 12, 2007 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 1 inches; 65 words Type of Material: Correction
Handgun registration: A story in Saturday's Section A on a court ruling that struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns stated that California required registration of handguns. State law says that anyone moving into California with a handgun must obtain a permit and register the weapon, but residents buying a handgun here need only obtain a safety certificate by passing a safety test.
For that reason, the case is expected to reach the nation's highest court.
If the justices were to agree with the lower court, the ruling would not likely sweep aside the many laws that regulate guns and gun ownership. However, it could cast doubt on measures that forbid law-abiding residents from possessing a weapon.
Although the 2nd Amendment is among the best known provisions of the Constitution, it has had remarkably little effect on the law.
Gun owners, led by the National Rifle Assn., have spotlighted the amendment's reference to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in waging political battles against efforts to limit the availability of weapons.
But in the Supreme Court's only major ruling that interpreted the amendment, it focused on the measure's opening words, which speak of "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state."
In upholding a federal law against transporting machine guns across state lines, the justices dismissed the 2nd Amendment as being concerned only with "the preservation of ... a well regulated militia."
Friday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia may cause the justices to reconsider that conclusion. Breaking with precedent, the 2-1 decision said the government may not forbid residents from owning "functional firearms" for self-defense at home.
The District of Columbia law barred virtually all of the city's residents from keeping in their homes handguns that had not been registered before 1976. Exceptions were made for active-duty and retired police officers.
The majority opinion by Judge Laurence H. Silberman said: "Once we have determined -- as we have done -- that handguns are 'arms' referred to in the 2nd Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them."
He added that this interpretation would not prevent cities, states or federal authorities from imposing "reasonable regulations" on gun ownership and possession.
