McDonald v Chicago (2010)

Definition

McDonald v Chicago is a landmark Supreme Court case that ruled the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This case arose when Otis McDonald challenged Chicago's handgun ban, arguing it violated his Second Amendment rights. The Court's decision extended the individual right to bear arms, emphasizing the importance of self-defense and the relevance of the Second Amendment in state law.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v Chicago was delivered on June 28, 2010, and was a 5-4 ruling.
2. The case effectively incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments for the first time, aligning it with previous rulings on other Bill of Rights protections.
3. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, stating that the right to bear arms is fundamental to the notion of ordered liberty.
4. The decision prompted various states and municipalities to reevaluate their gun control laws and regulations in light of the ruling.
5. McDonald v Chicago built upon the precedent set by District of Columbia v Heller, reinforcing individual gun ownership rights beyond federal jurisdiction.

Review Questions

• How did McDonald v Chicago extend the Second Amendment rights established in District of Columbia v Heller?
  • McDonald v Chicago built on the foundation set by District of Columbia v Heller by confirming that the right to bear arms is not only a federal matter but also applies at the state and local levels. The Supreme Court's ruling determined that states could not impose overly restrictive gun control laws that would infringe upon individuals' rights to possess firearms for self-defense. This case emphasized that the Second Amendment is fundamental to American liberty and thus should be recognized in all jurisdictions.
• What constitutional principles were at play in McDonald v Chicago regarding individual rights and governmental power?
  • In McDonald v Chicago, two primary constitutional principles were central: the incorporation doctrine via the Fourteenth Amendment and individual rights under the Second Amendment. The case highlighted how states cannot infringe on fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. By applying the Second Amendment through the Due Process Clause, the ruling reinforced that individual liberties must be protected from both federal and state encroachments, thus limiting governmental power over personal rights.
• Evaluate how McDonald v Chicago has influenced contemporary debates over gun control in America.
  • McDonald v Chicago has significantly impacted contemporary discussions surrounding gun control by establishing a clear judicial precedent affirming individuals' rights to own firearms. Since this ruling, many states have faced challenges regarding their gun laws, leading to legal battles over issues like concealed carry permits and assault weapon bans. The decision has fueled arguments both for and against stricter gun control measures, as advocates claim it protects personal safety while opponents argue it complicates efforts to reduce gun violence. The ongoing debates reflect a balancing act between upholding constitutional rights and addressing public safety concerns.

Related terms

Second Amendment:

A part of the Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Fourteenth Amendment:

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution that provides for equal protection under the law and extends due process rights to state governments.

District of Columbia v Heller: A 2008 Supreme Court case that affirmed an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for lawful purposes, notably self-defense within the home.