D.C. handgun ban argued before top court

WASHINGTON, March 18 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday heard one of its most polarizing cases in years -- whether arguably the nation's toughest handgun law is reasonable.

Justices' questions indicated disagreement about what is reasonable when quizzing attorneys about the District of Columbia's total ban on handguns.

At issue is whether it is constitutional to bar private possession of handguns, and require rifles and shotguns to be kept either disassembled or have a trigger lock. The judges are expected to consider whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution considers gun ownership an individual right or a collective one of the state for militias.

Justice Stephen Breyer asked if it were unreasonable for a city with a high crime rate "to say 'no handguns here.'"

Chief Justice John Roberts countered, "What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?"

"At the end of the day, (it comes) down to the fact that this an extremely reasonable law," William Dellinger, an attorney representing Washington, said after the hearing.

The D.C. ban singled out handguns because "they can be concealed and mobile," he said.

During arguments, Alan Gura, representing Anthony Heller, who sued the district saying the ban infringed his Second Amendment rights, said the law was unreasonable and "fails the standard of review."

U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement told the justices applying a too-strict standard jeopardizes the federal government's efforts to restrict machine guns or "plastic" guns designed to avoid a metal detector.

A decision is expected in June.