The U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider a case Monday concerning whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizens the right to own a gun.

Several California residents alleged that state laws passed in 1999 prohibiting the sale, manufacture or possession of certain semiautomatic firearms violate the Second Amendment.

The court’s decision in Silveria v. Lockyer was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who said the court’s guidance on the meaning of the right to bear arms was “not entirely illuminating.”

John Kaminski, director of the Center for the Study of the American Constitution at the University of Wisconsin, said the California legislation did not warrant the Supreme Court’s observance.

“They tend to choose those cases that have real constitutional (value),” he said. “It is ambiguous here.”

The Second Amendment says, “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.”

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted this amendment to mean that it protects gun rights for “militias” and not individual citizens. A more conservative New Orleans appeals court viewed it differently, ruling that individuals maintain the constitutional right to maintain guns. However, the Supreme Court has never said whether the right to “keep and bear arms” applies to individuals.

“Certainly, [the Constitution] is unclear in certain cases, and people have different views on what it means,” Kaminski said.

The Bush administration has traditionally endorsed individual gun-ownership rights and told the Supreme Court in another case in 2002 that it believed the Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess guns. But the administration did not encourage the justices to resolve the issue in this case, which involves a challenge of California laws that ban high-powered weapons.

“Citizens need the Second Amendment for protection of their families, homes and businesses,” California lawyer Gary Gorski wrote in the appeal.

But justices refused without comment to review the 9th Circuit decision.

“On constitutional issues, they are not cases of error … [The Supreme Court] finds cases with broader issues,” Kaminski said.

If the Supreme Court rules that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals, Kaminski said state supreme courts would have to make decisions in accordance with federal law, and legislatures will have to act consistently on their own conceal-and-carry laws.

“This is perhaps one of the most heated issues,” he said.

The Wisconsin Legislature has been debating concealed-carry laws in the state for the past few months. Two bills were introduced trying to lift a 130-year-old ban on residents carrying concealed weapons in public places.

The measures passed the state Senate in October by a vote of 24 to 8 and the Assembly Nov. 8 by a vote of 64 to 35.

Wisconsin is one of five states currently without a law allowing residents with permits to carry concealed weapons. Three states have enacted concealed-carry laws this year, including Minnesota.

Gun-owner groups pushed the court to take the politically charged case and were disappointed in its decision to dismiss the case.

The Supreme Court’s last major gun case was in 1939, when justices upheld a federal law prohibiting the interstate transport of sawed-off shotguns. But Kaminski said cases involving the Second Amendment have come before the court consistently throughout the years.