The Supreme Court has been reviewing D.C. gun laws to determine whether they violate the Second Amendment in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

For the past 30 years, Washington, D.C. has had some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. Citizens in the nation’s capital are unable to purchase handguns or keep loaded or assembled weapons in their homes.

Ashley Varner, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, said it is expected that the Supreme Court’s decision will affect the entire nation.

“Many people say that it could have a sweeping decision, because this is the first time the Supreme Court has heard a challenge to the Second Amendment since 1939,” she said.

The state of Iowa has comparatively few gun-control laws. Ames Police Cmdr. Jim Robinson said anyone in Iowa can own a firearm “unless they are a convicted felon.”

In order to purchase a gun, citizens must undergo necessary background checks. Handgun purchasers go through a stricter process than those purchasing rifles or shotguns.

“First [they must] go to the sheriff’s office and apply for a pistol-purchasing permit,” Robinson said. “Fill out a form, they do background checks on you, [and] eventually you are given a pistol-purchasing permit, which is good for one year.”

Dirk Deam, senior lecturer in political science, said the issue was “right up there with the abortion issue with the significance and intensity of the dispute.”

“Advocates for gun control argue that we have to have reasonable gun ownership to protect our safety,” he said.

Deam said all rights given to U.S. citizens come with some restrictions. For example, citizens yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater are not protected under the First Amendment’s right of free speech.

“With every constitutional right, including the First Amendment, there are restrictions understood. The rights are not absolute,” he said.

“In theory, since constitutional rights do not seem to be absolute, there seems to be some leeway for imposing certain restrictions on gun ownership without opposing the Second Amendment.”

Deam said the rights outlined in the Constitution were written “for the federal citizens under the federal court to protect them from the federal government,” which seems to suggest that “states might be able to restrict gun ownership in ways that the federal government cannot.”

Varner said the issue came about after D.C. residents were not able to purchase firearms they wanted to use to protect themselves.

“There were several residents in the city that wanted to apply to get a permit for a handgun. [They were] denied to purchase firearms for the use in their own homes,” she said.

The D.C. gun ban case was taken to an appeals court in March, and the court ruled against it. The city then decided to appeal to the Supreme Court.

“The court of appeals argued that the language was important but didn’t preclude individual gun ownership,” Deam said. “Each of us enjoys the rights of the Bill of Rights as individuals, not as groups. It’s understandable that they ruled the way they did.”

Varner said D.C. has had an “all-out gun ban” for 30 years, and the regulations for actually having a firearm in one’s home wouldn’t necessarily protect the owner.

“If you have a long gun – rifle or shotgun – it needs to be taken apart and rendered inoperable in order to keep it inside the home. It cannot be one put together, which doesn’t do any good,” Varner said.

Washington, D.C., is “one of the most violent cities in the country,” she said.

City officials are arguing that the Second Amendment does not apply to individual citizens, and the ban helps curb violent crime.

“The D.C. council and mayor are alleging that the Second Amendment does not give individuals the right for firearms. Every other state has ruled otherwise,” Varner said.

“[They] tried to say that the Second Amendment does not apply to them because they are not a state.”

Varner is not sure how far the Supreme Court decision will reach. It may only affect Washington, D.C., but it could also change gun laws around the country.

“No one really knows how far the court’s decision will reach yet. They could take it very narrowly and apply it only to the D.C. city gun ban, [or to] the Second Amendment across the country,” Varner said.

The NRA plans to participate in a hearing which Varner believe will take place in early 2008.

“The question that the Supreme Court is going to hear is ‘does the Second Amendment in the Constitution provide protection to individuals to own firearms?'” she said. “Thankfully, we already have most of the states across the country who have the Second Amendment written in as a right into their state constitutions.”