New England gun makers hail Supreme Court ruling

HARTFORD, Conn.—New England's prominent gun makers said Thursday's landmark Supreme Court ruling that affirms the right to keep guns at home for self-defense is a moral victory for their beleaguered industry and law-abiding gun owners.

The 5-4 ruling affirms gun ownership at home as an individual right for self-defense. It overturned a 32-year-old ban in the District of Columbia, letting governments continue to set rules for gun ownership but striking down outright prohibitions.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791.

"It really is a good day. This is just incredible," said Carlton Chen, a vice president and general counsel at Colt's Manufacturing Co. in West Hartford, where the 500-plus employees all received copies the court's decision Thursday.

"We've had so many attacks by anti-gun groups and laws that prevented law-abiding people from keeping guns and using them responsibly," Chen said. "We're elated -- we now have the grounds to challenge a number of these unfair laws."

Both Colt's and Massachusetts-based Smith & Wesson -- which relies on the commercial market for 75 percent of its sales -- say they are happy the ruling's language seems so unequivocal.

"What we've experienced in the past is that everyone, depending on their feelings about the whole gun debate, had their opinion of what that is ... this really does now, very clearly, grant the right to law-abiding citizens who qualify to own a firearm," said Paul Pluff, a spokesman for Springfield-based Smith & Wesson.

Messages were left Thursday for Fairfield-based Sturm Ruger & Co. Inc.

The basic issue for the Supreme Court justices was whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Connecticut's constitution already refers to gun ownership as an individual right. State officials said Thursday they expect few changes, if any, as a result of the high court ruling.

In Massachusetts, however, a 1976 Supreme Judicial Court ruling describes gun ownership as "related to the common defense," wording which might be called into question by the new Supreme Court ruling, said James Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League in Northboro, Mass.

"It's going to take some time to digest this," Wallace said of the lengthy court decision. "I'm very happy that it was written so clearly. Now the argument will be who gets to own a gun and who doesn't get to own a gun."

The ruling came as no surprise even to gun-control groups throughout the region.

"It clearly was a political decision based on the way the court is situated right now," said Ron Pinciaro, a director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence.

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, said the ruling leaves open the question of how other regulations already adopted by state and local governments nationwide will be affected.

For instance, Massachusetts local police chiefs and public safety boards have the discretion to unilaterally approve or reject licenses to carry firearms. The burden is on the applicant to prove why he or she should get the license, not on the local authorities to justify their denial.

That rule may be seen by some as clashing with the new interpretation of the right to gun ownership for self-defense, Tribe said.

"Now it's going to be open season on gun regulations, as it were," he said. "I think we're going to see a cottage industry of lawsuits against gun regulations, even regulations that in the end are going to be upheld."

Reaction to the ruling was mixed Thursday among shoppers browsing in the gun section of the Cabela's sporting goods store in East Hartford.

James Stearns, a 68-year-old gun collector from Brimfield, Mass., said the high court made the right decision.

"As long they have no record, they have a right to own a gun. All the right in the world," he said. "The bad guys will always have them."

Connecticut prison guard John Sharon, another supporter of the decision, called it "a relief for a lot of gun owners."

"All these do-gooders want to do is take guns off the street. Criminals are going to get guns, no matter what," he said.

But 70-year-old Carole Street, a grandmother from East Hampton, said she thinks gun ownership should be determined at the local level through ordinances.

"I don't think the Supreme Court should get involved," she said. "Men love guns. Our daughter won't let us buy a toy gun for her children."

----

Associated Press reporters Stephen Singer in East Hartford and John Christoffersen in New Haven contributed to this report.