D.C. Case Could Shape Gun Laws

"We support the court granting [review] and plan on responding very quickly," said Alan Gura, one of the lawyers who brought the case. Both sides expect that the court could decide by November whether to hear the case, which would mean a decision could come by next summer.

The Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the gun-rights guarantees of the Second Amendment since 1939, when it upheld a federal gun-control law and seemed to side with the collective-right argument.

The Second Amendment provides: "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."

The appeals court's decision to focus on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" rather than "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" reflects a growing trend in the legal and academic community.

Some gun-control groups are nervous about taking the appeals court decision, which now affects only the District of Columbia, to the national level. The District's petition asks the court to decide a fairly narrow question: "Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns."

The petition argues that the appeals court's decision ignored the "obvious military character" of the Second Amendment's language.

It argues further that the amendment was meant to protect the states from federal intervention, not to restrict their legislative decisions. "States remain free to regulate arms within their boundaries so long as they do not thereby deprive the United States of the ability to obtain the assistance of an armed citizenry in time of need," the petition states.

District lawyers argue that the ability to own shotguns and rifles satisfied the desire of the law's challengers for a means of self-protection. The appeals court found that argument "frivolous."

Although the case decided by the appeals court was called Parker v. District of Columbia, District lawyers have filed their petition as District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller. That is because the appeals court found that Heller, a security guard, was the only one of the six plaintiffs who had legal standing to challenge the law. His application for a handgun permit was denied by the government.

Gura said he will ask the high court to reinstate the others as parties to the suit.