In the case of Chance v. California, 1967, the United States Supreme Court addressed a challenge to a state law that made it illegal for anyone with prior felony convictions to possess concealable firearms. The appellant, Mr. Chance, had been convicted under this law and argued that it violated his Second Amendment rights as well as his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the laws because it discriminated against ex-felons. However, the Supreme Court upheld Mr. Chance's conviction and ruled in favor of California's gun control statute. The court found no violation of either amendment cited by Mr.Chance; they held that states have broad power to regulate firearms possession among their citizens - including those who were previously convicted felons - without infringing upon constitutional rights.The ruling affirmed that while individuals do have a right to bear arms per Second Amendment,it is not absolute,and can be subject to reasonable restrictions such as preventing certain groups from possessing guns for public safety reasons.Furthermore,the court rejected argument about Fourteenth Amendment violation,stating there was no discriminatory intent or effect in applying this law equally amongst all ex-felons.

In the dissenting opinion for Chance v. California, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dissenting justices believed that law enforcement officers should not be allowed to conduct warrantless searches simply because they suspect a crime has been committed. They contended that this interpretation could lead to abuses of power by police and infringe upon citizens' constitutional rights. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on what constitutes probable cause for a search or seizure without a warrant, arguing instead for stricter standards in order to better protect individual liberties from potential government overreach.