McDonald v. Chicago

McDonald v. Chicago

Answer explanation

Incorporated the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms to the states

McDonald v. Chicago Situation

Answer explanation

Chicago enacted a ban on possession of unregulated firearms. Gun owners had to register their guns with police or face violations. McDonald argued the ban violated the 2nd Amendment.

McDonald v. Chicago Question

Answer explanation

Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states?

McDonald v. Chicago Decision

Answer explanation

The 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense applicable to the states. Right to self-defense is a historically fundamental right.

McDonald v. Chicago Important Dissent

Answer explanation

Breyers argued that nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or purpose shows the possession of personal weapons for self-defense to be a fundamental right. Nothing in the Constitution allows the transfer of regulatory authority over firearms from the legislative branch to the judicial branch or from the states to the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. Stevens argued that owning a handgun is not essential to living with autonomy, dignity and freedom and that the Court's creation of a national standard is unwise, gun control matters should be left to states and localities where citizens can decide through the democratic process whether certain gun control measures are prudent or not.

McDonald v. Chicago Concurrence

Answer explanation

Thomas and Scalia argued that the Court is correct in finding that the Second Amendment applies to the states, but not by incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The right is instead incorporated through the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

McDonald v. Chicago Importance

Answer explanation

When the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court began to hold that rights from the Bill of Rights could be upheld through the due process clause. In this case, the Court held that only the portions of the Bill of Rights considered "fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty" and "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" are incorporated. This holding served as a restriction on the application of the Due Process Clause.