A ban on handguns in Washington DC has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices upheld a lower court ruling striking down the ban. The justices said individuals had a right to keep handguns at home.

It is the first such case considered by the court in decades and is expected to have effects on gun laws across the US.

Debate over the exact meaning of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms has raged for years.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says the ruling is of profound importance, as it enshrines for the first time the individual right to own guns and limits efforts to reduce their role in American life.

The Supreme Court said the constitution did not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defence in the home.

Since 1976, the private possession of handguns had been prohibited in the nation's capital, while rifles and shotguns had been required to be locked away or dismantled.

The DC city council argued that the ban was needed to help keep violence and murder rates down.

But the measure was challenged by a security guard, Dick Heller.

He argued that if he was allowed to have a handgun at work, he also had a constitutional right to have one at home.

Friends of the court

In March last year, a federal appeals court agreed with Mr Heller that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to keep and bear arms and that the DC ban was unconstitutional.

The city appealed against that ruling, with the case going to the Supreme Court.

The debate is centred on whether the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, protects an individual's right to possess guns, or simply a collective right for an armed militia.

The case has been closely watched, with dozens of outside groups filing opinions, known as "friends of the court" briefs, setting out their arguments for or against the DC ban.

The Supreme Court's ruling could spark challenges to gun control laws in other parts of the US, experts say.