The Supreme Court will hear arguments today on how the constitutional right to own firearms squares with local, national and state gun regulations.

Passions run high on this issue and the court faces a challenge in balancing individual rights and the general welfare. As we said last fall when the court agreed to hear the case, we hope the court preserves the right of governments to enforce sensible regulations.

A year ago, the Supreme Court settled the argument over whether citizens have an individual right to keep firearms. By a 5-4 majority, it said the Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to bear arms, including handguns, for protection and self-defense.

The majority demolished the idea that the Second Amendment only protected the right to take up arms for military service. But in establishing that the federal government could not infringe the right of individual ownership, it did not make clear to what extent regulation of firearms is permissible.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia noted that fears of gun violence are  well-founded. It’s a hopeful sign that even conservative jurists acknowledge the need to keep firearms out of the  hands of felons and the mentally ill.

It also seems reasonable to establish regulations  machine guns and  grenade launchers off the retail market, and to impose other appropriate regulations. States should also have leeway to enact other restrictions ”“ to regulate the carrying concealed weapons, to keep firearms out of schools, and to establish a waiting period for handgun purchases, to name a few.

The actual issue before the court is a handgun ban enacted by Chicago and Oak Park. Ill.  Since the ban is almost identical to Washington, D.C. ban struck down in the 2008 Second Amendment case, it may be in jeopardy.

Rather than a ban, Chicago might be better served by a regulated system of gun ownership. This may be anathema to activists, but the court needs to consider the national welfare as well as individual rights. With some 200 million guns in private  hands, and with 30,000 gun deaths annually, some oversight is essential.

The court should make it clear that the right to bear arms  is not infringed by reasonable regulations.