WASHINGTON — The Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” finally had its day in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, and the long-held view that it protects the rights of gun owners appeared poised to win a historic victory.
Five justices, a bare majority, signaled they believed the amendment gave individuals a right to have a gun for self-defense. It was not limited to arms for “a well-regulated militia” for the common defense, they said.
By adopting that view, the justices probably will strike down the nation’s strictest gun-control law, a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia.
But Chief Justice John Roberts said he favored a narrow ruling, one that would not cast doubt on an array of gun-control laws.
They include a ban on the sale of new machine guns, required background checks for new buyers of handguns and state licensing rules for those who wish to carry a concealed weapon.
“I don’t know why, when we are starting afresh, we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case,” Roberts told one lawyer.
The court is indeed “starting afresh” with the Second Amendment, nearly 200 years after it was adopted.
It 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.”
Despite this command, the court has never struck down a gun-control law for violating the Second Amendment. For many years, judges believed the amendment merely prohibited the federal government from interfering with the state’s right to maintain a “well-regulated militia.” But most Americans know the second clause, referring to the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” In polls, a large majority say they believe it gives law-abiding persons a right to own a gun.
While the court appears ready to agree with them, the chief justice alluded to the difficulty of deciding what kind of right is protected by the Second Amendment. Is the right to own a gun like the right to freedom of speech in the First Amendment? If so, most restrictions on that right would be in doubt. Or is the gun right subject to strict regulations by the government? The justices strongly hinted Tuesday they would leave open the question of whether many current restrictions on gun rights will stand.
Nonetheless, a ruling recognizing an individual right in the Second Amendment would be a landmark. The case heard Tuesday began when Robert Levy, a libertarian and lawyer who lives in Florida, decided to challenge the District of Columbia’s 30-year-old ban on handguns. One plaintiff, Richard Heller, is a private security guard who wants to keep his handgun at home.
Last year, a U.S. appeals court struck down the D.C. law, prompting the city to appeal the case.
A ruling is not expected until June.
