WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court set the stage for a historic ruling on gun rights and the Second Amendment by agreeing Wednesday to hear a challenge to Chicago’s ban on handguns.
At issue is whether state and local gun-control ordinances can be struck down as violating the “right to keep and bear arms” in the Second Amendment.
A ruling on the issue, due by summer, could open the door to legal challenges to gun-control measures in states and cities.
The case also will decide whether the Second Amendment protects a broad constitutional right, similar to the First Amendment’s right to free speech or the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In the past, the Supreme Court had given short shrift to the Second Amendment by saying it applies only to national laws and that its aim is to preserve “well-regulated militias.”
This narrow view of the amendment conflicted with the views of most Americans, according to opinion polls.
Last year, the court in a 5-4 decision breathed new life into the amendment by ruling that it protected an individual’s right to have a handgun at home for self-defense. The decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller struck down a local ban on handguns.
But since the nation’s capital is a federal enclave, the court did not reconsider its 19th-century rulings that said the Second Amendment applies only to federal laws and restrictions.
Since then, several gun owners have filed new constitutional challenges in several cities, including Chicago and the nearby Village of Oak Park. They lost when judges there said they were bound by the high court’s earlier rulings.
But the Supreme Court on Wednesday said it had voted to hear the appeals from gun owners in Chicago and Oak Park and to decide whether the Second Amendment restricts local and state laws as well as national measures.
In their appeal, lawyers for the gun owners say the court should rule either that the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms” is a “privilege” of citizenship or is part of the “liberty” protected by the 14th Amendment.
Lawyers for Chicago had urged the court to reject the appeal. They said that easily concealed handguns pose a special danger in cities.
“Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns,” they said, citing a Justice Department study. The city also said that although nearly all handguns are illegal, residents are permitted to have rifles or shotguns at home for self-defense.
It is not clear whether the court will rule squarely on whether the Chicago ordinance is constitutional.
Lawyers for the city proposed that if the justices take up the issue, they rule only on whether the ordinance can be challenged under the Second Amendment, and then send the dispute back to Chicago for a trial.
Other high court action
Terrorist aid: The Supreme Court will consider whether portions of a law making it a crime to provide “material support or resources” to designated terrorist groups are unconstitutionally vague. The law, frequently used by federal prosecutors since Sept. 11, 2001, bars financial and other aid to any group designated a terrorist organization. The individuals and groups that challenged the law argued that it prohibits aid to lawful, nonviolent activities of designated organizations.
Immigrant care: The court will decide whether the family of a now-deceased immigrant who was denied medical care for cancer while in custody can sue federal medical officials for damages. The case could have far-reaching implications for doctors, nurses and other medical personnel working for governments.
Sex-offender penalties: The court will hear a dispute over when new, harsher penalties can be given to sex offenders who don’t register with state sex-offender databases.
Human rights: The court will decide whether to throw out a human-rights lawsuit against a former prime minister of Somalia who is accused of overseeing killings and other atrocities. The issue is whether a federal law gives the former official, Mohamed Ali Samantar, immunity from lawsuits in U.S. courts.
