The unanimous decision means that, barring further legal action, voters will consider a constitutional amendment in November that would again limit marriage in California to a union between a man and a woman. The court did not give a reason for deciding not to accept the case.

"This was a frivolous lawsuit. It was a desperate attempt to try to keep the voter initiative off the ballot in November," said Glen Lavy, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund representing the measure's sponsors.

If it passes, the amendment, known as Proposition 8, would overrule the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the state as of June 16.

Equality California and other gay rights groups issued a statement Wednesday saying they were confident that the initiative, similar to gay marriage bans enacted in 26 other states, will fail.

"We're disappointed, but this ruling does not affect the campaign against Prop. 8 in any way," the groups said. "We have been focused on continuing the election and moving forward."

Equality California filed a petition last month arguing that the signature petitions used to put the proposal on the ballot, printed up before the court struck down the state's marriage laws, were misleading because they stated that the initiative would have no legal or financial effect.

The gay rights group also claimed that Proposition 8 would so drastically alter the promise of equality written into the California Constitution that it was improper to put it before voters as an amendment.

Dick Heller showed up early Thursday at the police department, but he's still upset with the city even after winning his case.

He says its strict new rules for handguns still violate the spirit of the court's ruling defending the constitutional right to bear arms.

They allow handguns to be kept in the home if they're used only for self-defense and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.

Gun owners can only register one weapon in the first 90 days. Police say the permitting process could take weeks or months. 6

The council's unanimous vote comes as officials try to comply with last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down the city's 32-year-old ban on handguns.

The emergency legislation will allow handguns to be kept in the home if they are used only for self-defense and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.

Handguns, as well as other legal firearms such as rifles and shotguns, also must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks — unless there is a "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm" in the home.

"This is not perfect legislation," said D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson, who worked with the mayor's office on the bill. "The first step is what we have before us today so that we maintain important provisions in our gun registration law while we continue look at how we can further refine our gun registration law."

Gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, said at least some of the new regulations will likely be challenged. The bill that passed Tuesday maintains the city's unusual ban of machine guns, defined as weapons that shoot at least 12 rounds without reloading, which applies to most semiautomatic firearms.

The emergency legislation will remain in effect for 90 days, and the council expects to begin work in September on permanent legislation.

Though residents can begin applying for handgun permits this week, city officials have said the entire process could take weeks or months.

The massive corruption scandal led to the investigation of 82 incidents involving 50 officers and reversal of more than 100 convictions tainted by police misconduct.

A jury in 2006 determined that the three men were each entitled to $5 million because they were wrongly arrested and charged with filing false police reports.

The three were implicated by former officer Rafael Perez, the central figure of the scandal in which officers were alleged to have beaten, robbed, framed and shot innocent people in the city's tough Rampart neighborhood. Dozens of officers were investigated, leading to some resignations and internal discipline, but only a small number of prosecutions.

Perez told investigators that the three men — Paul Harper, Edward Ortiz and Brian Liddy — had lied about finding a gun on a gang suspect during a 1996 arrest.

Harper and Ortiz are still with the department, but Liddy has left, according Officer Karen Smith, a LAPD spokeswoman.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in its decision Monday noted that on three different occasions Perez gave investigators significantly divergent accounts of what allegedly happened during the arrest, including the inaccurate detail that a music sound system had to be dismantled at the arrest scene.

A state court jury did convict the three men in 2000 of conspiracy to obstruct justice in the framing of two reputed gang members. A Superior Court judge threw out the convictions a month later, citing faulty jury instructions.

Prosecutors decided not to pursue the case, and a judge dismissed the charges in 2004.

The Ohio Supreme Court on Friday set an execution date of Oct. 14 for Richard Cooey, who was convicted of raping and murdering two University of Akron students in 1986.

Executions had been put on hold nationally for several months until the U.S. Supreme Court decided in April to allow Kentucky's lethal injection process, which is similar to the one used in Ohio. Opponents argued the procedure is unconstitutionally cruel.

Five men charged in the Sept. 11 attacks, including alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are to appear Wednesday and Thursday for pretrial hearings in the Bush administration's special tribunal for terrorism suspects. Their trials have not yet been scheduled.

The suspects could get the death penalty if convicted of charges that include murder.

A judge is expected to hold hearings to explore defense allegations that Mohammed intimidated his co-defendants into refusing military lawyers.

Meanwhile, a judge in Washington is considering a challenge that could disrupt the first scheduled war crimes trial, on July 21, of Salim Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden.

Hamdan's lawyers say a recent Supreme Court decision has raised new legal issues that require U.S. District Judge James Robertson to delay the trial. The government says it wants to move forward.

Robertson has scheduled a July 17 hearing in Washington on the issue, just four days before Hamdan is to go on trial in a specially built courtroom on a former airstrip at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba.

A ruling in favor of the prisoner could also delay the trials for other men held at Guantanamo, and perhaps force the military to devise a whole new way to prosecute alleged terrorists.

Now, after the state Supreme Court threw out the first-ever jury verdict finding former lead paint companies liable for creating a public nuisance, at least one city says it's rethinking a similar lawsuit against the industry, and one of the lawyers in the Rhode Island case predicted the decision would have a "devastating" effect on national efforts to hold the manufacturers accountable for their products. Still, other lawyers with pending cases say they're not deterred.

"There's no question about it, that the Supreme Court of Rhode Island has stopped any progress nationally to get justice for lead-poisoned kids," said Jack McConnell, a lawyer who represented the state and is involved in other lawsuits over lead paint. "It has a devastating effect on progress nationwide."

The 2006 verdict against Sherwin-Williams Co., NL Industries Inc. and Millennium Holdings LLC had been the only victory against the industry. It gave advocates hope for future success even though courts around the country have more recently rejected similar suits against the companies.

But the Supreme Court's opinion last week seemed to underscore the difficulty in successfully suing the industry, and other states and communities tracking Rhode Island's case could be less inclined to take up a costly court fight with uncertain prospects of victory.