Critics, led by the District of Columbia's sole delegate to Congress, decried the action. They said the vote tramples on the District's right to govern itself and could endanger both residents and political dignitaries who often travel across the city.

But the National Rifle Association-backed bill passed easily, 266-152, with supporters saying they were determined to give D.C. residents the same Second Amendment right of self-defense that has been available to other Americans.

Many of those speaking for the bill in debate that went well into the night Tuesday were conservative Democrats from rural districts who strongly support gun rights. Eighty-five Democrats voted for the bill.

"Number one, I'm a pro-gun Democrat," said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. "Number 2, if the government of the District of Columbia can take your guns away from you in our nation's capital, Prescott, Arkansas, and many other small towns across the country could be next."

The legislation is unlikely to be taken up in the Senate in the few remaining weeks of this session, but it served both to give lawmakers a pro-gun vote shortly before the election and to demonstrate the NRA's continuing political clout.

It's a "terrible Catch-22," House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., said Wednesday as the House passed, and sent to the White House, legislation aimed at assuring that the ADA lives up to its promise of protecting the disabled from discrimination.

The 1990 law is widely regarded as one of the major features of civil rights legislation in the 20th century because it ensured that the disabled have access to public buildings and accommodations, thus giving them better access to the workforce. But the Supreme Court has generally exempted from the law's anti-discrimination protections those with partial physical disabilities or impairments that can be treated with medication or devices such as hearing aids.

The Supreme Court has slowly chipped away at the broad protections of the ADA and has created a new set of barriers for disabled Americans," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., a chief sponsor of the bill along with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

The bill directs the courts toward a more generous application of the ADA's definition of disability, making it clear that Congress intended the ADA's coverage to be broad and to cover anyone facing discrimination because of a disability.

"It will afford millions of individuals with access to the courts under the ADA and clarifies that anyone with a disability is protected from unfair discrimination," AARP senior vice president David P. Sloane said after the Senate passed the measure by voice vote last week.

The House passed the measure by voice vote as well. But Hoyer noted that it took months of difficult negotiations involving the business community and advocates for the disabled to find the right balance between the rights of the disabled and the obligations of employers.

Jason Matteau, 27, and Rebecca Matteau, 24, of Jewett City, turned themselves to police in Montville after being told authorities had arrest warrants for them. They were freed on $50,000 bonds and ordered to appear in court Oct. 1.

Their son, Wyatt, died Aug. 28, about two hours after being shot in the head when the gun accidentally fired, state police said. The Matteaus were at their apartment with their son and infant daughter at the time, but Wyatt was alone in a room when the gun went off, troopers said.

Connecticut law makes it a crime to store loaded firearms in an area where the owner reasonably should know that someone under 16 could find them.

Jason and Rebecca Matteau are both charged with risk of injury to a minor. Jason Matteau is also charged with criminally negligent storage of a firearm.

Both charges are felonies. Risk of injury to a minor carries up to 10 years in prison, and the firearm charge carries up to five years in jail.

On Tuesday, the court expected to call Bruce Fromong again and perhaps several other witnesses who could set the stage for the jury to hear from Thomas Riccio, the colorful collectibles broker who arranged a hotel room meeting between Simpson and memorabilia peddlers Fromong and Alfred Beardsley a year ago when the pair said they were robbed at gunpoint.

"Obviously the prosecution may change witness order a little bit, but I would expect Tom Riccio tomorrow or Wednesday," Simpson defense attorney Yale Galanter said.

Fromong, 54, became "lightheaded, dizzy and started to sweat," according to his lawyer, Louis Schneider, before Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass sent the jury out of the room and suspended his testimony.

Fromong has had four heart attacks in the past year, said Schneider, who described his client as "medically fragile." Paramedics examined Fromong in the courthouse hallway, but left without taking him to a hospital.

The break interrupted a pointed cross-examination by Simpson lawyer Gabriel Grasso, who bored in after Fromong said for the first time that he heard "somebody in the room saying, 'put the gun down.'"

A lawsuit filed by his parents has been dragging through the courts for eight years as attorneys argue the central issue: who must pay damages.

A federal appeals court is still trying to come up with the answer.

Last December, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a lower court's order requiring several U.S.-based Islamic groups to pay $156 million to Boim's family — who claim money the groups gave to Palestinian charities ultimately helped fund terrorism.

But now the appeals court is second-guessing itself and revisiting the emotionally charged case, the first filed under a 1991 law allowing American victims of international terrorism to recover triple damages.

During an extraordinary "en banc" hearing before all 10 sitting judges last week, the case came in for a fresh airing. How much longer the case will go on is anyone's guess.

The court unanimously agreed with Jeremy Jaynes' argument that the law violates the free-speech protections of the First Amendment because it does not just restrict commercial e-mails — it restricts other unsolicited messages as well. Most other states also have anti-spam laws, and there is a federal CAN-SPAM Act as well, but those laws apply only to commercial e-mail pitches.

The Virginia law "is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face because it prohibits the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk e-mails, including those containing political, religious or other speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," Justice G. Steven Agee wrote.

Agee wrote that "were the Federalist Papers just being published today via e-mail, that transmission by Publius would violate the statute." Publius was the pseudonym used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in essays urging ratification of the Constitution.