Last modified: Friday, June 27, 2008 1:39 AM EDT (Associated Press) Supreme Court finds individuals have constitutional right to own handguns BY TED NESI SUN CHRONICLE STAFF Local gun-ownership advocates hailed the landmark Supreme Court ruling on Thursday that for the first time said the Constitution protects an individual's right to have a gun in his or her home. "It's a great day for us gun owners," said Ted Oven, who owns Northeast Trading Co. in North Attleboro, one of the largest gun stores in the state. "I think all legal firearm owners are very pleased." Gun owners had been closely following the case, which challenged a District of Columbia law banning handgun ownership. The narrowly divided court struck down the 32-year-old law as a violation of the Second Amendment by a single vote. "I'm kind of disappointed in the 5-4 decision," Oven said. "I don't know who would have read that in their right mind and not understood the wording. It's very clear to me, and I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar." The ambiguously phrased amendment, which was added to the Constitution in 1791, 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." However, Oven said he did not think the ruling would have a major impact in Massachusetts. "We have some of the strictest rules in the country already," he said, adding that he supports most of the state's gun-control policies. A spokesman for the Springfield-based gun-maker Smith & Wesson said the company expects only a modest increase in sales as a result of the ruling. However, James Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners' Action League (GOAL), a statewide advocacy group, said he thinks the ruling has significant implications for Massachusetts law. He argued that the ruling makes the state's mandatory trigger-lock rule unconstitutional. "How can people defend themselves in their home with their guns locked in a safe?" Wallace said. But Mansfield Police Chief Arthur O'Neill doesn't think the trigger-lock rule should be thrown out. "I certainly hope (it's) not, because that does prevent accidents," O'Neill said. "There is absolutely no need to keep a loaded weapon in your bedstand or under your pillow." He also expressed continued support for the state's gun laws. "I'm sure groups like GOAL will try to ride the tide and compromise the rules we have, and then I will stand tall against any changes, because I think Massachusetts has a very happy medium, if you will," O'Neill said. U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy said the decision could raise many questions about gun laws across the country. Kennedy spokesman Anthony Coley released the following statement Thursday: "Senator Kennedy has long been committed to reasonable gun control laws, and is concerned that this decision opens Pandora's box. Much of the progress we've made in making Americans safer by placing reasonable restrictions on the possession of firearms is now in doubt." But Wallace said the court's judgment is unambiguous. The ruling makes it "extraordinarily clear what the intention of the court was," he said. "It is extraordinarily clear from this decision that the court ruled for an individual right not attached to a militia." He added, "In the future, any gun laws that are passed will have to give the benefit of the doubt to the lawful citizen." TED NESI can be reached at tnesi@thesunchronicle.com or 508-236-0333.