After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution, and it says a state may not "abridge the privileges and immunities" of citizens nor deprive any person of "liberty ... without due process of law."
In the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court held that fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, free exercise of religion and freedom from unreasonable searches are part of the "liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment. These rulings permit constitutional challenges to state and local laws.
Until recently, the Second Amendment was all but ignored by the court.
In their appeal, lawyers for the gun owners say the court should rule either that the 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 though nearly all handguns are illegal there, 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.
The court said it will set arguments for January or February. The case is McDonald v. Chicago.
Other Supreme Court cases
Here is a look at other major cases and pending appeals that the Supreme Court will consider in its new term, which starts Monday:
* Religion: Can the government erect a cross in a national park? The American Civil Liberties Union sued over the long-standing cross in California's Mojave National Forest and won a ruling that the display of a Christian symbol on public land violated the First Amendment's ban on an "establishment of religion." (Salazar v. Buono. To be heard Wednesday)
* Animal cruelty: Can Congress make it a crime to sell videos of dogfights and other acts of animal cruelty? Last year, this law was struck down on free-speech grounds. (U.S. v. Stevens. To be heard Tuesday)
* Mutual funds: Can shareholders sue to contest the high fees charged by investment advisers? In rejecting such a claim, a U.S. appeals court said that as long as the fees are disclosed, they are not subject to legal challenge. (Jones v. Harris Associates. To be heard Nov. 2)
* Pro sports: Are the 32 teams in the National Football League shielded from antitrust claims because they operate as a single business? A Chicago-area maker of sports apparel sued after it was shut out from selling caps with a team logo. (American Needle v. NFL. To be heard in January)
* Prisoner photos: Does the Freedom of Information Act require the U.S. military to release more photos of prisoners being abused in Iraq and Afghanistan? Judges ordered the release of photos, but President Barack Obama appealed, arguing that the adverse publicity could endanger U.S. troops. (Appeal pending in U.S. Department of Defense v. ACLU)
