Isabella Carter
McDonald v. City of Chicago was a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court that found that the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The case centred on the question of whether the individual right to bear arms, as recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, is incorporated against state action via the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause or Due Process Clause.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date | February 4, 2009 |
| Petitioners | Otis McDonald, Adam Orlov, Colleen Lawson, David Lawson |
| Defendants | City of Chicago, Village of Oak Park |
| Clause Used | 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause |
| Decision | The individual right to bear arms is incorporated against state action |
| Landmark Decision | Yes |
| Similar Cases | District of Columbia v. Heller, Maloney v. Rice, NRA v. Chicago |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Second Amendment
McDonald v. City of Chicago was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2010. The case centred on whether the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states.
The case was brought by four Chicago residents, including Otis McDonald, who challenged a Chicago ordinance that required the registration of firearms while accepting no registrations that post-dated the implementation of a handgun ban in 1982. McDonald, a former maintenance engineer, pointed out that his neighbourhood in Morgan Park was prone to gang-related violence as a result of drug trafficking, and he had been the victim of five burglaries. He felt that he needed a handgun for self-defence.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment's guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws. The Court's decision was rooted in constitutional text and history, and surveyed the debates on the 14th Amendment as well as the landmark civil rights legislation enacted contemporaneously with the ratification of that Amendment.
The Court's majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, observed that:
> It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.
Justice Thomas, in a separate concurring opinion, wrote that the 2nd Amendment is fully applicable to states because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship.
The McDonald decision clarified the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) regarding the scope of gun rights in relation to the states. In Heller, the Supreme Court had struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home, holding that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defence. However, the Court in Heller declined to say whether the Second Amendment applied to the states and local governments, not just the District of Columbia, which is under federal jurisdiction.
Justices: Are They Counted in the Constitution?
You may want to see also
The Fourteenth Amendment
In the McDonald v. Chicago case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This ruling clarified that the Second Amendment's protections apply not just to the federal government but also to state and local governments. The Court's decision was based on the understanding that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment considered the right to keep and bear arms as one of the fundamental rights necessary for a free society.
The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was also central to the arguments presented in McDonald v. Chicago. While the Court's majority opinion did not restore the vitality of this clause, it did discuss its text and history. The case prompted a broader debate about the interpretation of the Constitution, with some scholars advocating for a progressive vision of the document and others supporting a more traditional interpretation.
In conclusion, the Fourteenth Amendment, through its Due Process Clause and the interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, has been instrumental in shaping gun rights jurisprudence in the United States. The McDonald v. Chicago case exemplifies how the Fourteenth Amendment continues to influence the legal system and the protection of individual liberties.
The Constitution's Main Writer: Uncovering the Founding Father's Legacy
You may want to see also
The right to bear arms
The landmark case of McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) addressed the question of whether the right to bear arms, as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus enforceable against state and local governments. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment's guarantee of an individual right to bear arms is applicable to state and local gun control laws. This decision built upon the precedent set in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which affirmed the right to keep and bear arms for self-defence and struck down a ban on handgun possession in the home.
In McDonald, the Court's majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, concluded that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment considered the right to keep and bear arms among the fundamental rights necessary for a system of ordered liberty. This interpretation was based on a survey of historical context, including debates on the Fourteenth Amendment and landmark civil rights legislation from the same era. The Court's decision emphasised that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the states and local governments, not just the federal government.
The McDonald case is notable for its attempt to overturn the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), which had determined that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not extend the Bill of Rights to state actions. While the Court in McDonald declined to restore the full force of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Justice Thomas's concurring opinion explicitly rested on this clause, asserting that the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship.
The case of McDonald v. City of Chicago had a significant impact on gun rights and the interpretation of the Second Amendment. It clarified the scope of gun rights in relation to state and local laws, ensuring that individuals' rights to bear arms for self-defence are respected by state and local governments. The decision also had broader implications, attracting the attention of legal scholars interested in its potential to shape constitutional interpretations beyond firearms law.
In conclusion, McDonald v. City of Chicago is a pivotal case in US constitutional law, resolving uncertainty about the applicability of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms at the state and local levels. The Court's ruling affirmed that this right is indeed incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, ensuring that individuals across the nation can exercise their right to self-defence.
Alkanes and Alkenes: Constitutional Isomers in Hydrocarbons
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Privileges or Immunities Clause
The historical context behind the Privileges or Immunities Clause is important to understand. Congressman John Bingham of Ohio, the main author of the clause, believed that the original, unamended US Constitution did not empower Congress to enforce the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Therefore, he advocated for including the privileges and immunities of US citizens in the Fourteenth Amendment. On May 14, 1868, Bingham emphasised that the Privileges or Immunities Clause aimed to prevent any state's constitution from depriving citizens of their rights and privileges within that state.
In the landmark case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Privileges or Immunities Clause played a significant role. The case centred on whether the individual right to bear arms, recognised in District of Columbia v. Heller, was incorporated against state action via the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment mandates that state and local governments respect the Second Amendment. While the Court majority did not restore the vitality of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the case sparked a broader discussion about the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment, including the clause.
In summary, the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment safeguards the fundamental rights of US citizens and ensures that states cannot infringe upon these rights. The clause has been interpreted and debated by legal scholars and judges, shaping its application in significant cases like McDonald v. City of Chicago, which clarified the scope of gun rights in relation to state regulations.
The President: Leading the Executive Branch in Democracy
You may want to see also
The Due Process Clause
The Court's decision in McDonald v. Chicago clarified that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment right to bear arms to the states. This right applies at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defence. The Court's interpretation of the Due Process Clause ensured that state and local governments must respect the Second Amendment.
The case involved four Chicago residents, including Otis McDonald, who challenged a Chicago ordinance that required the registration of firearms. The law also included stringent regulations, such as an annual fee for re-registration and a prohibition on registering a firearm again if its registration had lapsed. McDonald's neighbourhood was prone to gang-related violence and drug trafficking, and he had been the victim of multiple burglaries. As a result, he felt the need to possess a handgun for self-defence.
The Court's decision in McDonald v. Chicago was a landmark ruling, providing clarity on the scope of gun rights in relation to state and local laws. It built upon the earlier District of Columbia v. Heller case, which had struck down a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home. The Court's interpretation of the Due Process Clause in McDonald v. Chicago ensured that the right to bear arms is protected at the state and local levels, in addition to the federal level.
Justices' Life Terms: What Does the Constitution Say?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The main issue was whether the individual right to bear arms was incorporated against state action via the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment requires state and local governments to respect the Second Amendment.
The decision clarified the scope of gun rights in regard to the states and held that the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws.
![Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy [Connected Ebook] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61Zk5Ah2cjL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
