CrimeWatch

SAN FRANCISCO (BCN) ― Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Thursday that she fears the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the right to bear arms "opens this nation to a dramatic lack of safety."

The high court ruled by a 5-4 vote that the constitutional Second Amendment right to possess guns applies to individuals and not just to state-run militias.

The court overturned a 32-year-old handgun ban in Washington, D.C. The decision was the first time the court has ruled directly on whether the Second Amendment protects individual gun rights.

The amendment, enacted in the Bill of Rights in 1791, says, "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."

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion, "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."

Feinstein, D-Calif., said she believes the ruling "is now going to open the door to litigation against every gun safety law that states have passed," including assault weapons bans and trigger lock requirements.

The high court did not specifically rule, however, on whether the decision applies to state and local laws in addition to federal measures.

Several Bay Area lawyers had varied views on the ruling's effect.

Donald Kilmer, a San Jose attorney representing gun show promoters Russell and Sally Nordyke, said he is "moderately optimistic" that the ruling will aid their challenge to an Alameda County ban on gun possession at the annual county fair in Pleasanton.

The 1999 county measure prohibits guns on county property and has the effect of banning gun shows at the fair. The Nordykes are currently appealing to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a ruling by a federal trial judge last year upholding the law.

Kilmer said Thursday's decision "will help resolve whether law-abiding gun show exhibitors and patrons have a fundamental right to exercise their rights by holding and attending gun shows as long as they are obeying all federal and state laws regarding gun safety, gun display and gun sales."

The Alameda County law was previously upheld by the California Supreme Court in 2002 in an earlier challenge filed by the Nordykes, as well as by U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins in the couple's most recent lawsuit last year.

San Francisco has a similar law banning possession or sales of guns on city property, which includes Housing Authority public housing facilities.

National Rifle Association spokeswoman Ashley Varner said she could not confirm reports that the association plans to sue to overturn the law, but said, "I know we are keeping an eye on San Francisco. I can't tell you when or where we may take action."

Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said the city will "absolutely" defend the measure if it is challenged.

A broader San Francisco law banning most handgun possession was overturned by a state appeals court earlier this year, but on state law grounds not related to the federal Second Amendment. The appeals court said the measure, passed by city voters as Proposition H in 2005, was pre-empted by California laws on gun sales and licensing.

In a general statement posted on the National Rifle Association Web site, NRA chief lobbyist Chris Cox said, "Anti-gun politicians can no longer deny that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right. All law-abiding Americans have a fundamental, God-given right to defend themselves in their homes."

San Francisco and Oakland were among 11 cities that joined the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Legal Community Against Violence in a friend-of-the-court brief submitted to the high court in the Washington, D.C. case.

The brief argued that "gun violence poses a serious threat to American cities" and asked the court either to rule that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to local laws or to refrain from addressing that issue.

Dorsey said that while "there is not much in the majority opinion that is going to be encouraging to states and cities that are trying to fight violence by restricting access to weapons," the high court at least did not explicitly address whether the Second Amendment applies to local laws.

Legal Community Against Violence executive director Robyn Thomas said her group was disappointed with the Supreme Court ruling, but said she believes "most existing firearms regulations would be legally permissible."

Thomas noted that Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment right is "is not unlimited" and that the ruling did not affect laws prohibiting felons and mentally ill people from owning guns.

She said, "We can expect that this decision will lead to years of litigation as opponents of common-sense gun regulation mount challenges to long-established gun laws."

Legal Community Against Violence, based in San Francisco, is a national law center originally established by Bay Area lawyers in response to a 1993 massacre in which a deranged gunman shot eight people and himself in a San Francisco high-rise at 101 California St.

(© CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Bay City News contributed to this report.)