MR. KOJO NNAMDIFrom WAMU 88.5 at American University in Washington, welcome to "The Kojo Nnamdi Show," connecting your neighborhood with the world. Later in the broadcast, life after the fall in Libya, the messy aftermath of the revolution that toppled Moammar Gadhafi. But first, the shots continue in the legal wars over gun restrictions in our region. A federal judge in Baltimore this week declared that portions of a Maryland gun law are constitutional -- or unconstitutional.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIIt's the latest in a string of legal victories that Second Amendment activists have scored against local gun laws all at a time when the District is still trying to ease its gun restrictions in response to the Supreme Court case it lost on the matter nearly four years ago. Joining us to explore the legal landscape of where the Second Amendment fights are likely to go from here is one of the lawyers who successfully challenged the District in that Supreme Court case back in 2008.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIAlan Gura is a partner at the law firm Gura & Possessky. He was the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia versus Heller, which resulted in the striking down of D.C.'s ban on handguns. He joins us by telephone. Alan Gura, welcome.

MR. ALAN GURAThank you for having me, Kojo.

NNAMDIGood to hear from you again. You too can join the conversation by calling 800-433-8850. How do you expect the recent federal court ruling on Maryland's rules for carrying guns in public might affect neighboring places like the District? 800-433-8850. Send us a tweet, @kojoshow, or email us at kojo@wamu.org. Go to our website, kojoshow.org, join the conversation there.

NNAMDIAlan, let's start with Maryland, where U.S. District Judge Benson Legg this week essentially ruled that Maryland residents no longer have to show they have a good reason to carry guns outside their homes. What was this case about, and why do you think this portion of the law was open to a challenge?

GURAWell, the Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms, and that means we have the right if we so choose to carry handguns in public for purposes of self-defense. Now, that does not mean that the state can't regulate this activity. Most states license the right to bear arms. Oftentimes, people are required to undergo criminal background checks to demonstrate proficiency, to undergo some training.

GURABut at the end of the day, the premise of the licensing system has to be that because this is a constitutional right, you don't have to prove a good enough reason for your desire to exercise it, just like this radio station that we're on is licensed by the FCC. They have some things to tell you about how to operate the antenna and the switchboard and things. But at the end of the day, we don't need to prove to the FCC that Kojo has a good enough reason to wish to broadcast a radio show.

NNAMDIAnd Judge Legg ruled that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home. What significance do you see in that?

GURAWell, that means that the right to bear arms protects people when they are outside their homes. For example, if the government is going to impose oppressive restrictions on hunting, which the traditional (unintelligible) activity or if, as we saw in Chicago earlier last year, the government wishes to ban gun ranges. Obviously, if you have the right to have a gun, one of the things that you would do with it is you would go to the range and practice, learn how to use it safely so that you are not a danger to yourself or to your neighbors.

GURAChicago banned all gun ranges. We fought that. And that law was overturned. Obviously, there's an activity that occurs outside the home where people have Second Amendment protection and, of course, also as Ray Woollard in Maryland proved, you also have the right to be out in public with your firearms for self-defense. The right of self-defense, which is the core aspect of the Second Amendment does not end at your front door. It can arise wherever you might be.

NNAMDICourtland Malloy, columnist in The Washington Post, wrote today that in the incident that happened in Washington over the weekend in which one neighbor stabbed another to death over the walking of a dog near to that neighbor's home, the alleged assailant being Mr. Colbert and the victim being Mr. Wright. Courtland Malloy essentially wrote that if Mr. Wright had his friend Mr. Glock with him that he could have probably protected himself. That would be an indication of use outside the home for self-defense. Do you think that that would be what you're talking about as appropriate?

GURAAbsolutely. And that happens in America all the time. And most of the time when guns are used in self-defense, no shots are fired. It is very frequently enough simply to display the firearm to alter the equation for somebody who would be committing a crime against the would-be victim. Social scientists argue all the time about how many defensive gun uses are out there. But, you know, even at the low end of the figures, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of instances a year where people are able to use guns in self-defense, and again, not every time that they do so necessarily winds up in a shooting.

NNAMDIWe're talking with Alan Gura. He was the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia versus Heller, which resulted in the striking down of D.C.'s ban on handguns. We're talking about a recent ruling in Maryland which found that the Maryland law was unconstitutional which did not permit -- which on the one hand required people to prove that they had a need for a handgun and on the other hand limited the use of that handgun to within the home.

NNAMDIWe're taking your calls at 800-433-8850. What lessons do you think the District has learned so far from the Supreme Court case where its handgun ban was overturned? 800-433-8850. In Virginia, there have been legislative debates recently about whether people should be able to carry guns into parks or into public places, like restaurants, bars. Judge Legg wrote in the ruling about Maryland's law that it doesn't ban guns in churches, government buildings or places where the possibility of mayhem is most acute. Where do you think that last idea fits into this debate, Alan Gura, the part about the right to bear arms in places where the most mayhem might occur?

GURAWell, the Supreme Court in the Heller decision referenced the idea that you can ban the carrying of guns in so-called sensitive places. Now, I don't think anybody would dispute that. We may have a lot of litigation to explore as to what a sensitive place might be, how we determine if some places are sensitive. And there might be some debate about those -- what places those are, however, the concepts that there are going to be off-limits places is not a controversial -- one -- it's not one that we challenge, just like in the free speech environment, there are places where your right to speak is going to be curtailed to different degrees depending upon the traditional use of the property that you're located in.

GURASo, of course, you know, let's take an easy example. Nobody seriously would contend that you can take a gun or should be able to take a gun onto an airplane, through the metal detectors at the airport. That's an obvious sensitive place. A hall where the president of the United States is speaking, I think that's probably a place where guns can be (unintelligible).

NNAMDIWell, allow me to interrupt for a second because D.C. Councilmember Phil Mendelson seems to think or seems to argue that the District itself is such a hall. He said because the District is different. We have the president riding around here on frequent occasions, and we have members of Congress, Senate and House who walk around unprotected, walk into stores and other places that the notion of being able to carry a handgun outside the home in the District of Columbia is different than it would be in other places to which you say what, Alan Gura?

GURAWell, I think that's silly. I mean, the District is a home to, you know, over half a million people. It's a large city. And the president -- let's talk about the president. This is a president who, like most people who live in the city, likes to sometimes cross the border. We've seen President Obama enjoying ice cream in Alexandria. We've seen him having a burger at Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington with the vice president.

GURANow, of course, Virginia is a state where you don't need a license at all to carry a handgun openly, and you can get a license to carry one concealed fairly easily. And as -- I believe the president's spokesman said once about a year or two ago that the president understands that the laws don't change because he travels into a particular place. Now, I have no problem with setting up metal detectors and excluding firearms from some place where, you know, where the president is going to be delivering a speech or is having a meeting and certainly we can think about diplomatic missions and the like.

GURABut that doesn't mean that you take an entire city and suspend the Bill of Rights within that whole city. I mean, why stop at the Second Amendment. We -- why do we allow people Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures in the nation's capital. After all, the interest in detecting and stopping crime, political assassins perhaps is very high in Washington, D.C.

GURAAnd so maybe we should forget about the police needing a warrant to search your home or needing a warrant to search -- to listen in on your phone calls or read your emails if those are happening inside the District. But that's, you know, the District is not a Constitution-free zone. This is the capital of a free country where District residents are supposed to enjoy the basic protections of the Bill of Rights against the federal government.

GURAAnd so we don't suspend people's rights because they might be abused. We take precautions, and we've certainly done that in other areas. And there's no reason, though, to wholesale deprive people of the right just because the government is here.

NNAMDIWe've got a comment posted on our website from Jim who said, with respect, Maryland has lagged behind the rest of the country on this topic. Forty states have shall issue laws, included in these laws are required criminal background checks and gun safety classes. Additionally, the states that have enacted this legislation have experienced demonstrative declines in per capita violent crime rates.

NNAMDIThe rationale is simple. By allowing citizens to protect themselves and their family, the criminals are no longer the only ones that are armed. Let's see what Molly in Washington, D.C., has to say about that. Molly, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

MOLLYHi. I just like to respond to your guest's comment that having a weapon is an effective form of self-defense. The public health data does not show that. In fact, it shows that owning a weapon and carrying a weapon is a significant predictor of being shot with your weapon, and much of the time, that is with your own weapon. Furthermore, in the Gabby Gilford shooting, there was somebody in the crowd who had a concealed to carry permit with the weapon on them, and that didn't stop them from, you know, they were not willing to pull their gun and shoot at the shooter who was shooting at her. I mean, it's not necessarily -- I hear this argument all the time that owning a gun is a form of self-defense, but simply the data doesn't show that.

NNAMDIAlan Gura?

GURAWell, I respectfully disagree with the caller, but it raises an interesting point. Look, we have, you know, guns are a leading cause of statistics, and there is no shortage of social science on both sides of the debate. People say that guns reduce crime. People say that guns increase crime. They make you safer. They make you less safe. This is essentially a policy decision of the kind of that we have whenever we set out to make a law, but the Constitution reflects some of these policy decisions already.

GURAFor example, I could get you any number of economists who will testify up and down that the income tax is a terrible idea. It has all these bad externalities. And there's other ways the government can raise money. But all the same, it's in the Constitution. We've made the choice, and so we follow that law, likewise with the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Eight Amendment.

GURAI can cite to you any number of studies that have shown that courts applying the exclusionary rule to enforce the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures leads to violent crime and deaths because there are bad guys who are allowed to walk free, and the police are hampered in their ability to detect and prevent crime.

GURAAll the same, we've decided this is the sort of rule we're gonna have in a free society. Now, with respect to guns, people can disagree. That's fine. I happen to believe that guns are a net social benefit. The clients that I represent, for them, it's a real quality of life issue. They do feel better and safer and more secure knowing that they have the means of self-defense. The caller may disagree, that's great.

GURABut we have the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in our Constitution, and if we determine tomorrow that this is a bad idea, then the Constitution has a mechanism for an amendment so we can that take out. But I suspect that if that were to be proposed, the country, certainly, does not tend to agree with the caller's view.

NNAMDIMolly, thank you very much for your call. We're gonna take a short break. If you have called, stay on the line. We will get to your calls. We're talking with Alan Gura. He was the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller. You'll remember that case resulted in the striking down of D.C.'s ban on handguns. We're taking your calls at 800-433-8850.

NNAMDIHow do you expect the recent federal court ruling on Maryland's rules for carrying guns in public might affect neighboring places like the District? You can also send email to kojo@wamu.org. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.

NNAMDIWelcome back. We're talking with Alan Gura. He is a partner at the law firm Gura & Possessky. Alan was the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which resulted in the striking down of D.C.'s ban on handguns. We're talking in the wake of the ruling of a federal judge in Baltimore this week that declared portions of a Maryland gun law unconstitutional.

NNAMDIAlan Gura, the Baltimore Sun's editorial page suggested that Judge Legg seemed to offended by the specter of rationing permit, that the state bears the burden of determining whether a person is deserving of carrying a handgun in public, that the person doesn't have to demonstrate his or her need to do that. How do you see it? Is this the crux of the issue?

GURAYes, it is. If you have the right to do something under our Constitution, you don't need to prove to anybody that you have good enough reason to want to exercise the right. Now, of course, the state can regulate that right, and if you've conducted yourself in a criminal or irresponsible manner, then perhaps that right can be taken from you as we take away all sorts of rights from people who are dangerous and irresponsible.

GURABut at the heart of the matter, once we've determined that you have the right to bear arms, then you don't need to prove to anybody that you enjoy that right. That right is spelled out in the Constitution. That's where it exists.

NNAMDITo what extent do you think that the judge was leaning on the Supreme Court's D.C. case in order to make his decision?

GURAWell, the Heller case actually answers this question quite dramatically, Kojo. You may recall that the District of Columbia defended itself in the Heller case by asserting that the term bear arms has an exclusive idiomatic meaning, meaning to go forth into battle or to engage in military service, and it somehow forms a collective nature of the right. And so to answer or address the District's argument, the Supreme Court in Heller, sought to define the meaning of the term bear arms and they came out with a definition.

GURAThey held that bear -- to bear means to carry. To bear arms then now means to carry. It means to have an arm on your person so you can be armed and ready in case of a confrontation with another person. And then Supreme Court went several steps further. They lifted various exceptions to approve the rule. For example, the sensitive place exception that we discussed. Well, there are some places that you may be excluded from with your firearm. Well, that must mean that you must be allowed in other places.

GURAThe Supreme Court also said that, traditionally, states have had the ability to regulate the manner in which people carried guns. You cannot carry guns to the terror of the public. That's sort of an ancient doctrine going back to the 1300s, always distinguished from carrying guns in a peaceable manner. And, of course, the Heller court also referenced early American cases, the Constitution, treatises have all applied direct to arms outside the homes.

GURASo there's a lot in the Heller decision that already deals with the subject. And there is certainly nothing in the history or text or tradition of the right to bear arms that would indicate that somehow it only applies inside the home. There's simply no basis for that.

NNAMDIWell, before we get back to the phones, I gotta continue with D.C. for a second because right now the D.C. Council is maneuvering to make changes to its gun laws. In the wake of its lost at the Supreme Court, a bill is moving forward that would roll back certain rules requiring a vision test and a training course. What do you make of what's happening in D.C.?

GURAWell, obviously the District of Columbia got very excited about trying to regulate extensively the right to keep and bear arms. And as they found out, you know, both in subsequent litigation as well simply in trying to administer these regimes that it costs money. It's a bureaucratic burden, not just on the applicants but also on the city government.

GURAAnd since these regulations tend not to have any meaningful public safety benefits, then perhaps the District is better off saving itself the money both in terms of administrative costs and in terms of litigation and simply dispensing with them and trying to be more like a normal part of America.

NNAMDI800-433-8850. If the lines are busy, send us a tweet, @kojo, or go to our website, kojoshow.org. Have you tried to register a handgun in the District of Columbia? What's been your experience? You can also send us email to kojo@wamu.org. Here is Peter in Herndon, Va. Peter, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

PETERThank you, Kojo. I don't have a question for your guest. Do have a comment. My daughter, Mary, was one of the students who was shot to death at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007. And your guest is a very sharp lawyer, and I wouldn't present a debate with him on legal issues, but I would take issue with the idea that more firearms in public spaces are a net social benefit. And finding clever analogies to argue against the overwhelming social science that indicates that it's a bad idea to introduce more arms and particularly into the (word?) basically talk about -- might verge on irresponsible. And that's my comment and I will be happy to listen to anything he has to say off the air. .

NNAMDIObviously, Peter, we are very sorry for your loss, and clearly that has affected you emotionally. But, Alan Gura, Peter makes the point that the notion of more guns in public spaces as a social benefit obviously didn't work for him, and he doesn't see it working for society.

GURAWell, first of all, my heart goes out to the caller. Obviously, the loss of a child is an immeasurable tragedy. And you know, that's obviously a terrible, terrible loss the caller suffered. The issue here, though, is that sometimes people suffer such losses because they don't have guns. There are people who are hurt very badly and killed because they were deprived of the means of self-defense. There are people who suffer lower quality of life because they're insecure. They are afraid.

GURAThey know the police are not going to be around to protect them or to respond to their calls of distress, and they live in areas where crime is rampant. And as far as the social science is concerned, you know, again, I respectfully disagree. The studies are out there. We know what the effects are. And the one thing we can say for certain is that when we look at the population of people who've been issued permits in the various states, most of the states, the overwhelming majority of the states that issues such permits, that that population of permit holders is extraordinarily law-abiding.

GURAThey don't commit crime. They're not involved in crime. They're not involved in mishaps. You know, we've always heard these predictions of Wild West confrontations and blood in the streets and stuff like that. You know, perhaps people could've said that decades ago before states started liberalizing the practice again. But now we have data and we have decades of experience, and that simply does not occur. And so, yeah, obviously, I feel very terrible for the caller's loss. There are people who have a loss because they don't have firearms.

NNAMDIPeter, thank you very much for your call. We move on to Jenny in Washington, D.C. Jenny, your turn.

JENNYHi. Thank you for taking my call. And I just wanted to say I agree with Mr. Guru -- I'm pronouncing his name right?

NNAMDIGura.

JENNYI just feel like -- thank you. I feel like the District's rights have been trampled on. I've lived here for so many years. And I think there has been a racial dynamic to the fact that we have not been allowed to bear arms, and I think that is one of the net benefits of basically why people moving into the District. And I'm glad that that dynamic is changing. I am glad that we (unintelligible)...

NNAMDIWell, interestingly enough, Jenny, the racial -- interestingly enough, you've turned the racial dynamic that our elected officials have used on its head. The racial dynamic that they argue is that too many young black males have been dying as a result of gunplay and that's why we needed more gun control.

JENNYAnd I disagree. I think there's a place for anger management classes and classes concerning target shooting and the true use of a firearm. But to restrict law-abiding District residents from, you know, from having firearms to protect themselves has been a travesty, and I am so glad that we have this judgment. And I thank your guest so much. Thank you.

NNAMDIJenny, thank you very much for your call. We move on to Bill in Berryville, Va. Bill, your turn.

BILLThank you, Kojo, for taking my call. Yes, I grew up in a family with, you know, we -- guns were a part of normal life or whatever. We did hunting and that type of stuff, never had any problems with any of it. And my father often said, you know, the comparison was that, you know, as far as carrying guns that, you know, locks only keep the honest people from, you know, walking in your house or going in to a business or something like that.

BILLAnd I think the same thing is true with the guns as just indicated that it's the people -- I have a carry permit, concealed weapon carry permit. Those people that go through that process are not probably using those inappropriately. And the people who end up doing the, you know, the use of a weapon in a crime or whatever are committing the crime. And whether it be a gun, a knife or whatever it might be, they are prone to using that criminally. And that's not the issue here. The issue is you as a law-abiding citizen having the right to take and have something to protect yourself.

NNAMDIAnd I suspect, Alan Gura, you would be on agreement with our caller Bill?

GURAYes, I do. These laws that restrict peoples' access to firearms don't -- they don't deter the criminals. If somebody is intending to commit a bank robbery or murder, they're not gonna be dissuaded by the lack of a police permission to carry the firearms that they would use in that crime.

NNAMDIWell, Mark -- and, Bill, thank you for your call. Mark in Owings Mills, Md., seems to have the opposite argument. Mark, your turn.

MARKYeah. My concern is that if you relax the permit standard, more guns are on the street. And yes, with the -- I'm not sure if it was Mr. Colbert or Mr. Wright, but that poor gentleman who was killed by the (unintelligible)...

NNAMDIMr. Wright was the victim, yes.

MARKMr. Wright. You see, yes, he may have been unable to protect himself, but Mr. Colbert could very easily have gotten the gun under these relax standards. And a gun is -- have ability to harm someone from more of a distance, which would -- was a little bit less personal involvement. And I think that can cause more problems.

NNAMDITo which you say what, Alan Gura?

GURAWell, we had the experience now. We can look the, you know, if you go -- I believe Michigan, Florida and Texas, just to name off the top of my head are three jurisdictions where they publish the crime statistics of permit holders. You can go on the state police website of the state, the issuing authorities there. They break down the total number of crimes in the state by category and they describe, okay, how many of these are committed by permit holders?

GURAAnd you can see that permit holders, the people who are gonna go out and get the permits, are not involved in crimes. There's not. We also have some states even that don't require any permit to carry a gun, either openly or concealed or both. And these tend to be states that don't have a whole lot of violent crime. There are very, very few places right now where the right to keep and bear arms is generally not respected.

GURAMaryland, with this decision, becomes the 44th state where people in some way, shape or form can carry a gun at least with a permit that's gonna be issued to them if they're qualified.

NNAMDIMark...

GURAAnd, you know, this is normal now in United States.

NNAMDIMark, thank you very much for your call. Final question for you, Alan Gura. It seems fair to say that the District is motivated here to guard itself from future lawsuits by changing the process, but when you look at the process the city still has in place for people to obtain firearms. If you have to make a bet on whether the District will face another legal challenge soon on this issue, would you do it?

GURAYou know, the District is going to be facing a lot of legal challenges in the future. This is not going to stop until they come to terms with the fact that keeping and bearing arms is a normal American activity that people safely do for legitimate purposes. It's protected by the Constitution. And so I suspect there will be more litigation as we go down the road, and the District will eventually one way or another be forced to acknowledge the constitutional reality.

NNAMDIWell, I do have one more question for you. Well, it's not me, but Nick in Bethesda, Md., that hasn't come up as yet. Nick, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

NICKHello. Thank you. I have one quick comment and a question. The quick comment is, well, I'm amused by hearing Mr. Gura, as lawyers do contradict themselves and toggle back and forth on the issue of statistics. On the one hand, citing statistics to prove his claims, and on the other claiming when it's convenient that statistics are all over the map. And, you know, his statistics are presumably no better than anyone else, so that's my comment.

NICKMy question, however, is simply for the benefit of those without extensive knowledge of the interpretation of the Second Amendment. And that is what does Mr. Gura make of the introductory clause, a well-regulated militia and so forth? That's my question, and I'll take the answer off the air.

NNAMDIFor the purpose of maintaining a well-regulated militia, what do you say, Alan Gura?

GURAOh, we've been over this. The Supreme Court sell the matter like most legal commentators read and understand that the introductory clause gives you a reason why the right to keep and bear arms is preserved. The important word in the amendment is the word the. The article the informs us that we are talking about a pre-existing right that people possess simply by the virtue of the fact that they are born, just like we have the right to speak freely and worship and the right to be secure in our homes and papers and other things against search and seizure.

GURAWe have the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is qualified because if we did not have that right, if people did not have arms, then amongst other things, they would not be able to perform militia service. The militia system as it existed at the time relied upon people bringing with them their privately owned arms that they knew how to use and had them use in common use every day for traditional lawful purposes.

GURAIf people don't have the right to keep and bear arms, they're not able to participate in militia service. So if the militia is something that's important, that is one reason, not the only reason why the right, the pre-existing right is protected. That's the short answer. I commend the caller or anybody else to read seriously. The Supreme Court's opinion on this matter, it makes it very clear.

NNAMDIAlan Gura, thank you so much for joining us.

GURAYou're welcome. Thanks for having me.

NNAMDIAlan Gura is a partner at the law firm Gura & Possessky. He was the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller that resulted in the striking down of D.C.'s ban on handguns. We're taking a short break. When we come back, life after the fall in Libya, the messy aftermath of the revolution that toppled Moammar Gadhafi. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.