Washington ( CNN ) -- In another dramatic victory for firearm owners , the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago , Illinois ' , 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership , a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons . A 5-4 conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its 2-year-old conclusion that the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection . `` It can not be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee , not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as states legislated in an evenhanded manner , '' wrote Justice Samuel Alito . The court grounded that right in the due process section of the 14th Amendment . The justices , however , said local jurisdictions still retain the flexibility to preserve some `` reasonable '' gun-control measures currently in place nationwide . In dissent , Justice Stephen Breyer predicated far-reaching implications . `` Incorporating the right , '' he wrote , `` may change the law in many of the 50 states . Read in the majority 's favor , the historical evidence '' for the decision `` is at most ambiguous . '' He was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens , Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor . At issue was whether the constitutional `` right of the people to keep and bear arms '' applies to local gun control ordinances , or only to federal restrictions . The basic question had remained unanswered for decades , and gave the conservative majority on the high court another chance to allow Americans expanded weapon ownership rights . A key question was how far the court would apply competing parts of the 14th Amendment to preserve some `` reasonable '' gun control measures currently in place nationwide . The appeal was filed by a community activist in Chicago who sought a handgun for protection from gangs . Otis McDonald told CNN outside his South Side home that he wants a handgun to protect himself and his family from the violence in his neighborhood . `` That 's all I want , is just a fighting chance , '' he said . `` Give me the opportunity to at least make somebody think about something before they come in my house on me . '' His application for a handgun permit was denied in a city with perhaps the toughest private weapons restrictions in the nation . The justices two years ago affirmed an individual 's right to possess such weapons , tossing out restrictive laws in the federal enclave of the District of Columbia . The larger issue is one that has polarized judges , politicians and the public for decades : Do the Second Amendment 's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right or as a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias and therefore subject , perhaps , to strict government regulation ? And is that regulation limited to federal laws , or can it be applied to local communities ? The amendment states : `` 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 . '' Gun rights groups applauded the decision . `` Today marks a great moment in American history , '' said Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association . `` It is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending . '' Some gun control advocates tried to put a positive spin on the opinion . `` There is nothing in today 's decision that should prevent any state or local government from successfully defending , maintaining , or passing , sensible , strong gun laws , '' said Paul Helmke , of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence . The court majority refused to limit its 2008 District of Columbia ruling . That decision offered at least partial constitutional validation to citizens seeking the right to possess one of the most common types of firearms in their homes . The Chicago ruling now extends that right significantly . The Justice Department estimates that as many as 275 million guns are in the United States . In 2005 , three-quarters of the 10,100 homicides by firearms nationwide were committed with handguns . Underpinning the legal basis for the court 's jurisdiction in this appeal is a complex reading of the 14th Amendment , passed after the Civil War to ensure that all citizens -- including newly freed slaves -- were protected from state laws that might restrict their fundamental rights . One part ensures that states can not deprive people of `` life , liberty , or property , without due process of law . '' That has been commonly applied by federal courts when it comes to disputes over basic rights , so-called `` ordered liberty '' cases . Such cases include affirming the right to abortion , and to homosexual sex . But another rarely used provision also prevents states from depriving the `` privileges or immunities '' of all citizens . The specific question for the high court in the Chicago case was whether the `` immunities and privileges '' clause should be used to overturn the handgun ban . An 1873 ruling limited use of that provision when considering a variety of state laws . McDonald 's lawyer , Alan Gura , promoted a new reading of the clause , in his lead role representing gun owners . The constitutional theories are dense , but some legal scholars had said that if the high court embraced this `` privileges and immunities '' clause , it could open up to fresh review a huge range of issues , like property rights and gay marriage . Courts have generally upheld other cities ' restrictions on semiautomatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns . The conservative high court majority has in recent years upheld a California ban on assault rifles , similar to a federal ban that expired in 2004 . Forty-four state constitutions protect their residents ' right to keep weapons , according to a brief filed by 32 state attorneys general in support of the individual weapons owners in the current appeals . Some constitutional experts have noted the Bill of Rights had traditionally been applied by courts only to the federal government , not to local entities . It was not until the past half-century that the justices have viewed free speech , assembly , and the press -- among other rights -- as individual in nature , and fundamental to liberty , superseding in many cases the power of states . There have been limits . The high court has repeatedly refused to extend to states the 5th Amendment requirement that persons can be charged with serious crimes only by `` indictment of a grand jury . '' The current case was McDonald v. Chicago ( 08-1521 ) .
one -4 decision reiterates and expands conclusion in 2008 Illinois decision . Due process section of the Second Amendment used in decision . `` A great moment in American history , '' Handgun 's Wayne LaPierre says . NRA control advocate says decision does not prohibit `` sensible , strong gun laws ''