The US Supreme Court begins hearing a landmark case today that for the first time will decide if Americans have an individual right to own a gun. At issue is the 27-word, 217-year-old Second Amendment - which includes the phrase “the right of the people ... to bear arms” - which remarkably has never been definitively interpreted.

The politically charged case, which pits gun rights advocates against gun control groups - and even Dick Cheney against the Bush Administration - is focused on Washington DC's strict ban on handgun ownership.

Funded by a wealthy libertarian lawyer, a 65-year-old Washington security guard, Dick Heller, is challenging the handgun ban, arguing that it stops him from keeping one at home and protecting his family. The 1976 law, one of the strictest in America, was passed by the District of Columbia during a gun crime epidemic.

The case has drawn enormous attention because for the first time, the Supreme Court might decide whether gun ownership is an inviolate constitutional right as powerful as the First Amendment's right to free speech.

Such a decision could trigger a flood of lawsuits from the gun lobby, challenging the many restrictions and regulations imposed on gun ownership at a state, city and federal level across America, such as bans on the sale of new machineguns and some assault rifles, or the private ownership of armour-piercing bullets.

The court's decision, expected in June, will also have an impact on the presidential election. John McCain, the Republican nominee, is a staunch Second Amendment supporter. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support Washington's handgun ban. Yet the subject is an uncomfortable one for Democrats, because a majority of Americans believe in the personal right to own a gun.

At issue is the intention of the Second Amendment, which reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Remarkably, despite the widespread private ownership of guns across America, most US courts for the past century have interpreted the Second Amendment as only giving a right to own a gun if the owner is a member of a militia - the “collective rights” approach.

Indeed, until a ruling last year that triggered today's Supreme Court hearing, nine US federal appeals courts that have considered the question since the 1930s embraced the collective rights approach, believing that the Second Amendment granted no individual right to own a gun.

In practice, individual states have allowed individual gun ownership - the gun lobby is particularly powerful in state legislators - but have also passed restrictions and safeguards. Until now, the Supreme Court has largely shied away from taking a stand on the issue.

Last year, however, the US Federal Appeals Court in Washington backed Mr Heller and ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a handgun. It was the first time in American history that a federal court used the Second Amendment to strike down a gun control law.

The District of Columbia has appealed against that ruling, which is why the case is being heard by the Supreme Court. The DC government argues that the handgun ban is essential because of the high gun crime rate. The gun lobby argues, among other things, that gun control does not curb gun crime. They want gun ownership to be as unfettered as possible.

The Bush Administration, to the fury of the gun lobby, is taking a more moderate approach. The US Solicitor-General, representing the Administration, will argue before the nine justices that individuals have a right to own a gun, but such a right is subject to “reasonable regulations”.

Deaths from guns in the US is far higher than in Britain. In 2002 about four of every 100,000 Americans were killed by guns, compared with 0.15 in England and Wales. In 2004 11,344 Americans were killed by guns, compared with 73 in Britain.

Second Amendment

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Ratified December 15, 1791

Source: US National Archives

Times Recommends

• 'Radio Rancid' is scourge of Obama
• French gulp as global warming alters wines
• Colton, the barefoot boy bandit, outfoxes sheriffs