Source

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to take dead aim at the fierce debate over gun regulations in cities and states across the country, with California's
strict gun-control laws squarely in the cross hairs of the legal
showdown.

The justices on Tuesday will hear arguments in a challenge to a Chicago area ban on handguns and semiautomatic weapons, weighing for the first time whether the Second Amendment right to bear
arms applies to local and state gun regulations. For a state such as
California, which has long been a target of gun rights advocates for a
slew of firearms regulations, a Supreme Court ruling extending Second
Amendment protections to cities and states could open the floodgates to
a new generation of lawsuits.

Experts generally agree that whatever the Supreme Court decides, it will not erase many of California's gun laws. But gun rights groups already are gearing up for
lawsuits that would renew challenges to California laws, including its
assault weapons ban, on the grounds they trample on the fundamental
right to bear arms.

The case also could have implications for local efforts to regulate gun possession and sales, including a direct impact on a long-running legal battle over Alameda County's ordinance
banning gun possession on county property. That case is on hold in a
federal appeals court, awaiting the outcome in the Supreme Court. San
Mateo County also recently considered gun limits before tabling the
idea.

"California has a lot at stake," said Dennis Hennigan, vice president of law and policy for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which rates the state first in gun control
laws. "You could certainly see increased litigation over all these
laws."

Chuck Michel, a lawyer for the National Rifle Association in California, adds: "There will be lots of stuff, especially the stuff that's really extreme and high-profile, that will
be challenged as vulnerable."

The Supreme Court case is the second in the past two years that takes on a legal debate over the Second Amendment that went unresolved for more than 100 years: how
much, and whether, constitutional protection restricts government's
ability to regulate gun ownership, possession and sales.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave, concluding that it trampled on the
Second Amendment. Left unresolved was whether the Second Amendment
would likewise invalidate similar state and local laws, prompting an
immediate challenge to Chicago's regulation.

A federal appeals court upheld the law, in large part by finding that the Supreme Court had not established a Second Amendment right that applies to cities and
states.

Legal experts say the fallout from the Chicago case will depend on how far the justices go in their decision. In the 2008 ruling, the 5-4 majority, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, did make clear
that certain areas of gun regulation were "presumptively valid" for
government, such as firearm sales.

"I think there will be questions about specific regulations and whether they fall out of those categories," said Sayre Weaver, one of the lawyers defending Alameda
County's ordinance.

Many states have joined in the case, arguing that the Second Amendment should extend to the states. California is in a unique position, being one of just six states that does not have the
equivalent of the Second Amendment in its state constitution.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown weighed in on the Supreme Court case, taking the position that the federal right should apply to the states —
a position that disappointed gun control advocates. However, Brown's
office also urged the justices to take the case to "provide guidance on
the scope of the states' ability to reasonably regulate firearms."

Gun rights groups predict that ability could be curtailed, although they concede California will still be able to maintain a menu of anti-gun
laws. Experts, meanwhile, say the only guarantee is that the latest
Supreme Court case will keep judges across the country busy on gun
rights issues for years to come.

"The case will kick down the line the really hard questions," said Doug Berman, an Ohio State University law professor following the case closely. "We're in
uncharted territory. No one is quite sure where we're going, and I'm
not even sure anyone knows where we should be going."