The U.S. Supreme Court has shaken some gun control advocates by reaffirming its interpretation of the Second Amendment and clarifying its protection of gun ownership.

The 5-4 decision expanded on the court’s 2008 landmark decision upholding the right of an individual to bear arms. In overturning a Chicago handgun ban last week, the court made it clear that neither federal, state, nor local governments may forbid ownership of firearms.

Yet the decision is not the manifesto that Second Amendment activists may have wished for. So far, the court’s view of the right to bear arms does not seem to put assault weapon bans, concealed weapons permits or other regulations in any jeopardy at all.

Chicago is already retooling its laws to limit gun ownership without imposing an outright ban. And Massachusetts’ strict gun laws will be unaffected, according to its attorney general.

The 5-4 Supreme Court Decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, reaffirms what most would expect to be true: That the Bill of Rights applies equally under federal and state jurisdiction. Once the ban on handgun possession was found unconstitutional for Washington, D.C., it would be disconcerting to have a different standard for Chicago.

As in the 2008 decision, Alito emphasized that “self-defense is a basic right ”¦ and is the central component of the Second Amendment right.” The law effectively strikes down handgun bans that have been in effect in Chicago and Oak Park. Ill., for nearly 30 years.

But “a right to keep and bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever,” Alito said, quoting the court’s 2008 decision. He said that many long-standing restrictions on firearm ownership and sales will be unaffected.

Although the right to bear arms is widely supported, most people also believe sensible gun regulation is essential for public safety. We hope the gun rulings of 2008 and 2010 provide a good foundation for laws that reflect both of these ideas.

It’s important for states and municipalities to be able to insist on background checks and waiting periods before the purchase of some firearms. Keeping guns out of the hands of felons and away from schools are reasonable restrictions. Chicago apparently intends to limit handgun ownership to one weapon per household.

All these restrictions appear to be well within the framework set by the court. The court seems to believe that a citizen’s right to bear arms can be limited when necessary for the greater good of the community.

Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven at nickc@journaltribune.com.