The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment 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."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

The high court ruled 8-1 in favor of Walter Rothgery. In 2004, three weeks after he arrived from Arizona to take a job managing an RV park in Gillespie County, Rothgery was arrested for carrying a gun as a convicted felon. No lawyer was provided at his first court hearing and his wife used their last $500 for bail.

The arrest was based on a mistake in a computer database that showed he was a felon, which left him unable to find a full-time job. By the time he was indicted six months later, he was broke, his bond had tripled and he was sent back to a county jail 100 miles from his home.

A sympathetic warden helped Rothgery find an attorney to obtain documentation showing he had no felony record. He was released and the weapons charge finally was dropped.

Rothgery sued Gillespie County for violating his constitutional right to counsel. When a federal court and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the case, his attorneys went to the Supreme Court. The ruling Monday returns his lawsuit to the lower courts.

"Texas really is part of America now," Rothgery, 57, told The Associated Press on Monday from Llano, where he works in an equipment rental store. "I am fairly pleased. I was trying to keep an even keel. It got harder as we got to the end of June.

"Now I can let it loose. Before I was trying to hold back and try not get my hopes too high."

Rothgery's lawyers argued Texas should provide a defense lawyer for indigent clients once they've made a first appearance before a magistrate, even if no prosecutor was present.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has used authority given to him by Congress in 2005 to ignore environmental and other laws and regulations to move forward with hundreds of miles of fencing in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas.

The case rejected by the court involved a two-mile section of fence in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area near Naco, Ariz. The section has since been built.

"I am extremely disappointed in the court's decision," Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said. "This waiver will only prolong the department from addressing the real issue: their lack of a comprehensive border security plan."

Thompson chairs the House Homeland Security Committee. He and 13 other House democrats — including six other committee chairs — filed a brief in support of the environmentalists' appeal.

Earlier this year, Chertoff waived more than 30 laws and regulations in an effort to finish building 670 miles of fence along the southwest border. Administration officials have said that invoking the legal waivers — which Congress authorized in 1996 and 2005 laws — will cut through bureaucratic red tape and sidestep environmental laws that currently stand in the way of fence construction.

A former partner in Milberg Weiss has sued four of its founding partners - Melvyn Weiss, David Bershad, Steven Schulman, and William Lerach - claiming they lied to him and other attorneys about their secret kickbacks to plaintiffs in shareholder class actions. Michael Buchman sued his former partners in Federal Court on Tuesday, as the firm, now known as Milberg, agreed to pay $75 million to the United States to settle criminal complaints in the scheme.

Buchman says he joined Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach in January 1997 and was made a partner in December 2000. He worked in the antitrust division until he left the firm in February 2007. When Lerach left to set up his own office in 2004, the firm changed its name to Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman.

Buchman says the defendants lied to him, and to other attorneys, after federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment in which Seymour Lazar and Paul Selzer alleged that "certain partners of Milberg Weiss" had secretly paid them kickbacks to serve as plaintiffs in securities class actions.

Buchman's complaint states: "In various meetings that occurred at Milberg Weiss after the Lazar Indictment, Defendants Weiss, Bershad and Schulman, who were united in interest, repeatedly represented to plaintiff and to other partners in Milberg Weiss hat the accusations contained in the Lazar Indictment were untrue, politically motivated, and that the government's case rested on mischaracterization of legitimate referral fees paid to other law firms, which assertedly had been duly reported to the government of Forms 1099. Weiss, for example, vigorously denied that the alleged payments had been made to Lazar, and represented that Lazar's sold motivation for pursuing multiple class actions had been to recover for his own injuries and to serve as 'a crusader.'

"Believing these representations of fact by defendants, plaintiff continued to serve as a partner in Milberg Weiss. Similarly, most other Milberg Weiss partners who had no prior knowledge of defendants' unlawful and unethical acts also continued throughout the rest of 2005 to serve as Milberg Weiss partners.

"Defendants had a fiduciary duty to plaintiff and to other Milberg Weiss partners to be honest and forthcoming with government authorities. Were the allegations made in the Lazar Indictment true, defendants had a duty truthfully to reveal their unethical and unlawful conduct to the authorities and to take personal responsibility for such conduct. Instead, defendants refused to acknowledge the truth and continued to misrepresent the facts to government authorities, thereby putting Milberg Weiss as a firm, and the financial and professional interests of plaintiff and other innocent Milberg Weiss partners, in grave jeopardy."