...

Gun control debated in landmark US Supreme Court case

Other News Materials 19 March 2008 00:18 (UTC +04:00)

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday considered just how much government can restrict gun ownership in a landmark case that could have far-reaching implications for gun control laws in the United States. ( dpa )

The case involves a ban by the government of the nation's capital, the District of Columbia, on all handguns.

But the one-and-a-half hour debate went to the heart of whether the US Constitution grants people the right to keep weapons for private use.

Hundreds of people waited for hours outside the court house - some since Monday night - for a chance to listen to one of the most emotional and long-running debates on the US political scene.

The court's nine justices appeared at times sharply divided over the issue of what kind of "reasonable" restrictions could be placed on gun ownership, while still allowing people to keep weapons for the purpose of self defence.

At the centre of the debate is an amendment to the US Constitution, created soon after US independence, that gave states the right to maintain their own military force to defend themselves, should it be necessary, against the federal government and rebellions.

Lawyers for both sides engaged in a long and spirited debate with the nine justices - involving history, grammar and legal lessons - over the exact meaning of one sentence:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," reads the 1791 second amendment.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered a moderate judge in the court, argued that the second clause in the amendment gave individuals the right to keep weapons, in an unusually clear statement of his views.

"In my view, it supplemented by saying there's a general right to bear arms," he said of the amendment.

But while many members of the court appeared to grant an individual the right to keep weapons, the justices were just as clear in suggesting that restrictions on that right were still necessary.

An individual right "is not being infringed if reasonable restrictions are placed upon it," Chief Justice John Roberts said.

Walter Dellinger, the attorney representing the city government, argued that the city's ban focussed only on one specific weapon, the handgun, while allowing other weapons such as shotguns and rifles.

"This law is designed only for the weapon that's concealable and moveable and can be taken to a school or the metro," he said.

Justice Samuel Alito - a conservative on the court - suggested that cities and states should be given the "leeway" to place "reasonable" restrictions on the use of weapons, though it remains unclear just how far the court will allow such restrictions to go.

Alan Guru, the attorney for a Washington resident who challenged the city's law, charged that city authorities were not allowing people the right of self defence.

"They simply don't trust people to defend themselves in their own home," he said.

A ruling by the court is not expected until June.

Latest

Latest