The constitutionality of gun control laws are clarified by the Supreme Court. The ruling strikes down many city and state bans on handguns, though it does leave the door open for carefully worded legislation that restricts gun ownership. The McDonald vs. Chicago decision is a clarification to last year's striking down of the Washington D.C. handgun ban.

Resource for this article: Supreme Court Rules on gun control in Second Amendment case by Personal Money Store

SCOTUS rules on gun ownership

The Supreme Court's decision on gun ownership and the Second Amendment is the second in the last few years. Handguns can't be restricted on ownership, as outlined by the decision rendered in McDonald v. Chicago. In 2008, the SCOTUS ruled that federal districts could not ban handgun ownership. This second ruling confirms that the very same standard applies to states and cities. In the written decision of the 5-4 ruling, Alito wrote that "self-defense is a basic right... individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment ."

Some legislation can nevertheless be constitutional

Gun-limiting legislation is not entirely unconstitutional, though – the ruling does leave open a possibility of future legislation. The majority opinion restates the 2008 caveat that "recognized the right to keep and bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for no matter what purpose." Gun ownership could be limited, but only under certain situations. The right to own guns, though, might still supersede the right of the government to limit that ownership.

Other Supreme Court decisions

Today, the court handed down decisions far beyond just the Second Amendment. The Court declared that the Public Company Accounting Board, as it was created, is unconstitutional. This is a board that was intended in 2002 to audit public companies, in response to the failure of Enron and WorldCon. The board could be made constitutional if the Securities and Exchange Commission gets more control over the board. In Bilski v. Kappos, the court ruled that a patent can't be taken out on financial risk limiting strategies.