US:YESTERDAY'S SUPREME Court ruling overturning Washington DC's ban on handguns is the court's first comprehensive interpretation of the Second Amendment of the US constitution and one of the most important judgments in its history.
By a 5-4 majority, the court found that the handgun ban, one of the most restrictive in the country, violated an individual's constitutional right to bear arms. In so doing, it settled a 200-year dispute over the meaning of the Second Amendment, which restricts congressional regulation of guns.
"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 amendment states.
Gun control advocates have long argued that the amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms only in the context of "a well regulated Militia" but the court concluded yesterday that gun ownership is an individual right.
"The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defence and hunting," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.
"In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defence." Mr Scalia made clear, however, that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was not unlimited, any more than is the First Amendment right to free speech.
"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms," he wrote.
That qualification offered some comfort to law enforcement authorities in the most violent American cities but yesterday's judgment will undoubtedly trigger a flood of legal actions. Strict gun bans in cities like Chicago and San Francisco and stringent regulations in New York are likely to be the first to face a legal challenge.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice-president of the National Rifle Association, hailed yesterday's decision as "a great moment in American history". "It vindicates individual Americans all over this country who have always known that this is their freedom worth protecting," he said.
Public opinion is firmly behind the Supreme Court, with three out of four Americans saying they believe all citizens have the right to own handguns. Democrats have been edging away from gun control in recent years and Barack Obama yesterday held back from criticism of the court's decision.
"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures," he said. "As president, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."
Mr Obama was less restrained in his response to another Supreme Court ruling this week, condemning the court's decision to outlaw the execution of people convicted of child rape. Describing the rape of a child as "a heinous crime", Mr Obama said he agreed with the conservative minority on the court who believed the death penalty should be available for such crimes.
"I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes," he said.
In another key decision this week, the court dramatically reduced the damages Exxon Mobil was ordered to pay for the disastrous 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska. By a 5-3 majority, the court reduced from $2.5 billion to about $500 million, the compensation the company must pay to about 32,000 commercial fishermen, Alaska natives, property owners and others harmed by the US's worst ever tanker spill.