Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
(AP Photo/David Duprey)
Team coverage
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, for the first time ever, that Americans do have an individual right to own guns.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns, which was the strictest gun control law in the nation.
Utah gun owners and enthusiasts are praising today's ruling by the Supreme Court, but the anti-gun crowd is reacting with skepticism.
The ruling does not change laws here, but Utahns for and against gun rights have plenty to say about today's decision.
On one hand, gun owners are happy with the court's 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms.
At Get Some Guns and Ammo, store owner Stewart Wahlen is getting ready for a competition. He's been following the case and says it re-affirms an individual's right to defend one's self.
"We can't control everybody; that's part of freedom. Someone has the choice to choose on how they want to act with their liberties, and we can do nothing for that except for: ‘Hey, I'm involved in it now. I'm going to defend myself,'" Wahlen said.
Wahlen says the split decision from the court is a win, but for him it's one that's too close for comfort.
Meanwhile, Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah spokesman Steven Gunn is concerned the decision opens the floodgates to gun control challenges.
"The decision leaves a lot of questions unanswered, questions that will have to be answered by lower courts," Gunn said. "I do think that the courts are going to see an enormous number of cases dealing with what constitutes the lawful regulation of firearms."
But Gunn believes state law will not be impacted by the ruling. He says that's because it only addresses a ban on handguns, not other forms of gun control in federal law.
Ron Mullen, also with Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, said, "This ruling by the Supreme Court doesn't change anything. It makes it worse."
Mullen's son was shot and killed at Indiana University 15 years ago by a German student who had a handgun. He said, "He would have never gotten in his own country. Our child got shot because he lived in the wrong country."
For decades gun opponents have said the founding fathers meant a right to gun ownership extended to state militias, not individuals.
Today though, five of the nine justices agreed that the Constitution protects gun ownership for self-defense or for hunting. Gun owner Maureen Wood said, "We need self-protection. Everybody has the right to have them. It's only fair."
Mullen says gun advocates create the problem and then try to solve it with more guns. He said, "They demand the right to carry a weapon so they can protect themselves."
It's an interpretation that could give way to a new series of legal battles. Scott M. Matheson, professor at S.J. Quinney College of Law, said, "There's a lot for lawyers, law professors and legislators to study and analyze and determine how far this opinion really goes. We're going to be talking about it, debating it. I think there are going to be future cases that will refine the scope of the right that the court recognized."
Today's ruling does not affect existing restrictions on firearm possession in schools, churches, and government buildings.
E-mail: corton@ksl.com
E-mail: mgiauque@ksl.com
E-mail: bbruce@ksl.com
