Supreme Court takes a fresh look at handgun laws

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court could ignite a vigorous new fight over state and local gun controls across the nation when it rules on a challenge to Chicago’s handgun ban.

The court said Wednesday it will consider a challenge to Chicago’s ban, and even gun control supporters believe a victory is likely for gun-rights proponents.

If the court rules that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn’t allow the city’s outright handgun ban, it could lead to legal challenges to less-restrictive laws that limit who may own guns, whether firearms must be registered and even how they must be stored.

The court last year moved in the direction of voiding tough gun control laws when it struck down a prohibition on handguns in the District of Columbia, a city with unique federal status. Now the court will decide whether that ruling should apply to local and state laws as well. The court will hear arguments in the case early next year, and a ruling probably would follow in the spring.

The court has said previously that most, but not all, rights laid out in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights serve as checks on state as well as federal restrictions. Separately, 44 state constitutions already enshrine gun rights.

Though faced with potential limits from the high court on their ability to enact laws and regulations in this area, 34 states weighed in on the gun-rights side before the justices agreed to take the case Wednesday, an indication of the enduring strength of the National Rifle Association and its allies.

The gun case was among several the court added to its docket for the term that begins Monday. Others include:

— A challenge to part of a law that makes it a crime to provide financial and other aid to any group designated a terrorist organization.

— A dispute over when new, harsher penalties can be given to sex offenders who don’t register with state sex offender databases.

— Whether to throw out a human rights lawsuit against a former prime minister of Somalia who is accused of overseeing killings and other atrocities. The issue is whether a federal law gives the former official, Mohamed Ali Samantar, immunity from lawsuits in U.S. courts.

In the gun case, outright handgun bans appear to be limited to Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Ill. But a ruling against those ordinances probably would “open up all the gun regulations in the country to constitutional scrutiny, of which there are quite a few,” said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor whose recent book “Out of Range” explores the often bitter national debate over guns.

Already, Alan Gura, who led the legal challenge to the Washington law and represents the plaintiff in Chicago, is suing to overturn the District of Columbia’s prohibition on carrying firearms outside a person’s home. Illinois and Wisconsin have similar restrictions.

In voiding Washington’s handgun ban last year, Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that gun rights, like the right to speech, are limited and that many gun control measures could remain in place.

Ultimately, said Tushnet, the court will have to decide, possibly restriction by restriction, which limits are reasonable.

“It’s very hard to know where this court would draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable,” he said.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said he hopes the court rules that “core fundamental freedoms like speech, religion and, we believe, the right to keep and bear arms are intended to apply to every individual in the country.”

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the court’s decision to take up the new case was unsurprising in light of last year’s ruling. These cases should “take the extremes off the table,” Helmke said, referring to bans on guns and unlimited gun rights. “What’s critical for us is how the court goes about fleshing out what the limits are.”

The case is McDonald v. Chicago, 08-1521.

Associated Press writer Sara Kugler in New York contributed to this report.