on the presidential debate stage<u+00a0>wednesday, democratic presidential nominee hillary clinton staked out a position seeking to affirm her respect for the second amendment while criticizing the supreme court<u+2019>s 2008 decision that affirmed the constitution protects an individual right to possess firearms. in her debate answer, however, mrs. clinton misleadingly suggested<u+00a0>the focus of the law at issue was to keep toddlers away from guns. mrs. clinton faulted the landmark decision, district of columbia v. heller, for rejecting washington, d.c., regulations requiring weapons to be stored in a dismantled state and with a trigger lock. <u+201c>what the district of columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them. and the court didn<u+2019>t accept that reasonable regulation,<u+201d> she said<u+00a0>at the final debate with her republican rival, donald trump. her answer glossed over the thrust of the city<u+2019>s gun law, which effectively barred private ownership of handguns. the city council established one of the strictest handgun laws in the country, forbidding residents from registering guns and making it illegal to possess an unregistered firearm. the high court<u+2019>s majority did consider a secondary question about the storage of firearms, but only in the context of the right of a citizen to use a handgun for self-defense. a spokesman for mrs. clinton noted that attorneys for the district of columbia did argue in the case that the city<u+2019>s weapons regulations were meant to protect children. the clinton campaign also pointed to research showing that gun locks can help prevent accidental shootings by children, including toddlers. but the court<u+2019>s finding revolved around a central constitutional question: was there an individual right to bear arms under the constitution and did the washington, d.c., handgun ban violate that right? the case was brought by dick heller, a security guard who was allowed to carry a weapon at his job at a federal agency but not at home. in a 5-4 decision, the supreme court for the first time said there is an individual right to bear arms for self-defense, including handguns. <u+201c>handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid,<u+201d> the late justice antonin scalia wrote for the court<u+2019>s majority. the court would then go on to strike down the city<u+2019>s requirement that lawfully registered firearms be rendered inoperable any time they were in the home, finding that <u+201c>this makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.<u+201d> notably, the court<u+2019>s majority opinion didn<u+2019>t say the right to bear arms was unlimited. justice scalia wrote that the district of columbia had <u+201c>a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.<u+201d> in the eight years since the heller decision,<u+00a0>few gun regulations have been struck down by the courts. write to byron tau at byron.tau@wsj.com
clinton misstated focus of gun law in debate answer - wsj
byron tau