By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - At the Supreme Court on Tuesday, foes in the nation's long debate over guns spelled out their dramatically different views of firearms and the public's safety.

"They simply do not trust people to defend themselves in their own home," argued Alan Gura, the lawyer asking the justices to strike down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and assert a Second Amendment right of individuals to have guns.

Representing the district, Walter Dellinger said the local government banned only one kind of weapon, the handgun, because it can be easily concealed and "taken into schools, into buses, into government office buildings."

At the end of a historic and lively session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the amendment's reference to service in a militia. The case could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.

There was also skepticism, but less apparent agreement on whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.

Several justices openly doubted that the District of Columbia's 32-year-old handgun ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could survive under that reading of the Constitution.

"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice Hon. John Roberts asked.

Dellinger replied that Washington residents could own rifles and shotguns and could use them for protection at home.

Hon. Stephen Breyer appeared reluctant to second-guess local officials.

Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer asked.

Gura, representing a Washington resident who challenged the ban, said a complete prohibition on a type of weapon is unconstitutional.

Supreme Court justices rarely have the chance, as one of them said Tuesday, to start fresh when considering words written more than two centuries ago.

But the court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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 basic issue for the justices is whether the 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.

Hon. Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Hon. Samuel Alito, Hon. Antonin Scalia and Hon. Clarence Thomas - a majority of the nine-member court.

Gun-rights proponents were encouraged.

"What I heard from the court was the view that the D.C. law, which prohibits good people from having a firearm ... to defend themselves against bad people, is not reasonable and unconstitutional," National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said after leaving the court.

Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said he hoped the court would leave the ban in place and not vote for a compromise that would, for example, allow handguns in homes but not in public places. "More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime. And that is why we stand so steadfastly against any repeal of our handgun ban," he said after the arguments.

The court also has to decide whether Washington's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun-control laws. The justices have many options, including upholding a federal appeals-court ruling that struck down the ban.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said, the court should say that governments may impose reasonable restrictions, including federal laws that ban certain types of weapons.

Clement wants the justices to order the appeals court to re-evaluate the Washington law. He did not take a position on it.

This issue has caused division within the administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the official position at the court.

Washington also has a trigger-lock requirement for other guns that raised some concerns Tuesday.

"When you hear somebody crawling in your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire?" Hon. Antonin Scalia said.

Roberts, who has two young children, suggested at one point that trigger locks might be reasonable. "There is always a risk that the children will get up and grab the firearm and use it for some purpose other than what the Second Amendment was designed to protect," he said.

Roberts, too, wondered about the practical effect of removing a lock in an emergency. "So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses," he said to laughter.

Dellinger said he opened the lock in three seconds, in daylight.

Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" and "The NRA helps criminals and terrorists buy guns."

Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "Guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.