Gun-rights backers hail decision

Inland Northwest gun-rights advocates greeted Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling as a long-awaited victory – though the victory was closer than they’d have liked, with the Supreme Court rejecting Washington, D.C.’s, handgun ban 5-4.

“I think they followed the Constitution,” said Terry Rogers, owner of All American Arms in Spokane Valley. “I was very disappointed it wasn’t 9 to 0.”

But while proponents of stricter gun laws said they were disappointed by the ruling, it wasn’t expected to have an immediate effect in the region.

Neither Washington nor Idaho has an out-and-out gun ban, as D.C. did, and the Supreme Court majority opinion said the ruling wasn’t intended to prevent all gun-possession bans.

“Obviously, it’s not the opinion we hoped for,” said Kristen Comer, executive director of Washington CeaseFire, which works to reduce gun violence. “We also don’t feel like it’s going to have a huge impact on our work here in Washington state.”

It likely will take years for the ripple effects of Thursday’s ruling to become clear, observers said. Few places impose absolute bans on handguns like Washington, D.C.’s 32-year-old ban. The broader implications stem from the court’s assertion that the Second Amendment provides an individual’s right to bear arms rather than a state’s right to maintain militias, as some argue.

“I’m 60 years old, and this was a debate even when I was in law school,” said Jim Pharris, deputy solicitor general with the Washington Attorney General’s Office.

Pharris said he doesn’t believe the ruling will provide ammunition against Washington’s gun laws, which include a requirement for gun licensing with concealed carry permits and a ban on assault-style weapons. But he noted that the court’s dissenters feared the ruling could serve as a basis for broader challenges to gun-control laws.

That would be OK with some gun proponents, who argue that an armed citizenry is a defense against crime. That abstract argument turned concrete for residents of Moscow, Idaho, in May 2006, when a gunman killed three people and wounded three before taking his own life.

During the shootout, a 20-year-old University of Idaho student grabbed a pistol and ran to the scene of the gunfight to help. Peter Husmann was shot three times, and in the weeks after the shooting he faced criticism for his actions from police officials who said such actions can endanger others and confuse officers.

Husmann – who called the court’s ruling “awesome” – said that he believes in an armed citizenry as a bulwark against crime and that he doesn’t regret his actions.

“I believe your neighbor or the common citizen should be the first defense should anything happen,” he said. “D.C. has a very high crime rate. The criminals know no one’s armed.”

Husmann said his experience during the shooting intensified his belief in the right to bear arms. “I’ve become more passionate,” he said.

Others in Moscow became engaged on the opposite side of the issue. Mayor Nancy Chaney explored outlawing guns at City Hall, although officials abandoned that plan after a state attorney general opined that it would be illegal under Idaho law.

Tim Gresback, a Moscow attorney who led a panel discussion on community safety in the months after the shooting, said he’s unconvinced that armed citizens are a great line of defense.

“That’s the type of Neanderthal, gung-ho gun use that some folks are promoting,” he said. “I’m just of the opinion that guns don’t buy you safety. They buy you the illusion of safety.”

Gresback said injuries and deaths from gun accidents outweigh the benefits of self-defense.

“For every odd, anecdotal case we have when a gun disarms somebody, I can cite 25 cases where someone has accidentally or mistakenly been shot,” he said.

Rogers, the owner of All American Arms, takes the opposite view. On Thursday he related stories of armed people defending themselves against criminals, and he said he believes that the number of gun accidents is small given the large number of gun owners.

And, he said, he’s glad the Supreme Court supported what he has believed all along.

“I’m pleased they recognized that we do have that right,” he said.