Across the nation, cities and states have responded to reported increases in firearms being used for illegal purposes with laws that come perilously close or are outright bans on gun possession or ownership.

Problem is, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says Congress can’t do that.

Indeed, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 margin, ruled in 2008 that an across-the-board gun ban in Washington, D.C., was unconstitutional.

A new case, which the court has also agreed to decide, probably in 2010, comes from Chicago. The law there bans handguns and the legal distinction being argued is that while the District of Columbia is federal turf, governed directly by Congress, cities and states are different. They may ban guns, say Chicago’s lawyers and the 7th Circuit Court, as a matter of state and local rights.

That theory, that the Constitution limits Congress but not state lawmakers, has not cut much butter in previous Supreme Court decisions. That it likely won’t again — even with new Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the court — has gun control advocates in a tizzy about their fear of “rollbacks.”

We’d prefer to call them reinstatements or a renewal of protection of a basic right.

The Constitution is not easy, nor is it absolute. Freedom of speech, for example, is also guaranteed — but even in the days of the founders there were limitations. Libelous speech, for example, is not protected.

What the Constitution and the courts have required is that when a guaranteed freedom is to be reined in by Congress (or by a state or city) the limitation be “narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest.”

The right to weapons is not absolute. If you don’t believe it, try erecting a missile launcher in your yard.

But neither can — or should — states and cities be granted the power to enact overbroad, sweeping, simplistic and general “solutions” such as banning any and all firearms because some people choose to use them for criminal acts.

The better view — we have long believed and courts have long held — is that age of ownership, caliber and other restrictions of a sensible nature are acceptable. Advocates of more sweeping government controls may be well-intended and may sincerely — if misguidedly — believe that the world would be a better place without firearms, but that’s not the point.

A crucial tenet of any democracy is that government limitations on our personal freedoms be as limited as possible. The issue is more than a choice to own a gun. The issue is what measuring stick may be used when a freedom is to be limited. Any across-the-board ban falls far short of that standard.