The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear an important Second Amendment case challenging the constitutionality of Chicago's gun ban ordinance.

Last year we praised the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling that the Constitutional right of “the people” to bear arms actually belongs to those people, not merely the state they inhabit. The case then was District of Columbia v. Heller, and the ruling was that federal laws prohibiting citizens from owning handguns are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. We knew then that cities with similar bans would also be challenged — the suit had already been filed in Chicago.

Wednesday's decision by the court was to hear arguments over whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment. A federal appeals court upheld a handgun ban in Chicago, but gun rights supporters appealed to the high court, noting last year's decision striking down the D.C. ban.

The Chicago case, McDonald v. Chicago, raises the question not presented in Heller — whether the Second Amendment prohibits states and their municipal subdivisions from enacting such laws.

“This case raises the important issue in our system of limited, federal government about the interplay between the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution and contrary state laws,” said Maureen Martin, senior fellow for legal affairs for the Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit research and education organization. “The Supreme Court's previous holdings on this subject have been confusing and contradictory, so it is welcome news that the court will now clarify them.”

Martin points out that the rates of burglary and aggravated assault have “skyrocketed” since 1983 when the city first enacted its handgun ban. She says those rates have remained much worse than in the rest of the country.

As we pointed out following last year's Supreme Court decision, the court did not extend gun rights beyond what they are commonly understood to be. We have a constitutional right to “basic” firearms of the type generally available, just as the original citizens did. But reasonable regulations are acceptable.

As we said then, the best thing the decision did is to affirm the right to bear arms is a personal and pre-existing right, not one conferred upon us by the state.

Chicago mayor Richard Daley called last year's court ruling “very frightening” and vowed a vigorous fight to preserve his ban.

Now the fight is on. We hope when the case is argued next year, the court can sort it out for another majority opinion on the side of the people.