Malcolm Rivera
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 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 arose when Otis McDonald, a retired African American custodian, and others filed suit in U.S. District Court to challenge provisions of a 1982 Chicago law that banned the new registration of handguns and made registration a prerequisite for possessing a firearm. The crucial question was whether the Second Amendment is applicable to the states and their political subdivisions.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date | June 28, 2010 |
| Decision | The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is fully applicable to the states and local governments |
| Landmark | Yes |
| Supreme Court Justices in agreement | Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy |
| Supreme Court Justices dissenting | John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor |
| Distinctive feature | Asked the court to overturn the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) |
| Related cases | District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Nordyke v. King (2009), Maloney v. Rice (2009), Ezell v. Chicago (2011) |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Second Amendment and its applicability to the states
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights, and states: "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." The amendment has been the subject of much debate and litigation over the years, with varying interpretations regarding the extent of the right to bear arms and whether it applies to state governments or only the federal government.
The case of McDonald v. Chicago (2010) is a landmark Supreme Court decision that addressed the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, or if it is solely a restriction on the federal government. The constitutional question in McDonald v. Chicago was whether the Second Amendment's right to "keep and bear arms" is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus applying this right to the states and limiting their ability to regulate firearms.
The Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. Chicago built upon an earlier landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). In Heller, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and that Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun possession violated this right. However, because Washington, D.C. is a federal district, the decision did not directly address whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.
In McDonald, the Court extended the application of the Second Amendment to state and local governments through the process of selective incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty and deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition, and therefore, it is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The ruling in McDonald v. Chicago had significant implications for gun control laws across the country. It established that the Second Amendment places limitations not only on the federal government but also on state and local governments, guaranteeing an individual right to possess firearms that cannot be infringed upon. This decision has provided a framework for challenging state-level gun control measures that may violate the Second Amendment rights of citizens.
However, it's important to note that while McDonald v. Chicago affirmed the applicability of the Second Amendment to the states, it did not invalidate all gun control laws. The Court recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited and that certain regulations may be permissible. The decision left room for states to implement reasonable restrictions on firearms while also ensuring that citizens' fundamental right to self-defense is protected.
Understanding Constitutive Criminology: Three Key Components
You may want to see also
The right to keep and bear arms
In 2008, Otis McDonald, a retired African American custodian, and other Chicago residents filed a lawsuit in the US District Court challenging a 1982 Chicago law that banned the possession of handguns. The law also made registration a prerequisite for firearm possession. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and others filed separate lawsuits challenging the Chicago law and an Oak Park, Illinois law that generally prohibited the possession or carrying of handguns.
The McDonald v. City of Chicago case questioned whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to state and local governments, or only to the federal government. The Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that the Second Amendment does indeed apply to state and local governments, as well as the federal government. This ruling was based on the argument that the individual right to possess and use firearms for lawful purposes, especially self-defence, is fundamental to the American "scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice".
The McDonald case is unique among post-Heller gun cases as it asked the court to overturn the Slaughter-House Cases, which determined that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not apply the Bill of Rights to the actions of states and local governments. The McDonald ruling clarified that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to all of the states, and that the Fourteenth Amendment requires state and local governments to respect the Second Amendment.
The decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago had significant implications for gun rights and regulations across the United States, setting a precedent for future cases involving the interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Unfunded Mandates and Preemption: Constitutional or Overreach?
You may want to see also
The Fourteenth Amendment and its Privileges or Immunities Clause
The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which was at the heart of the McDonald v. Chicago case. This clause is designed to protect substantive fundamental rights from state abridgment.
The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in the aftermath of the US Civil War and fundamentally altered the federal system. The Privileges or Immunities Clause was intended to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.
In the McDonald v. Chicago case, residents of Chicago and its suburbs wanted to keep handguns in their homes for self-defence but were prohibited from doing so by city ordinances. The case hinged on whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms was applicable to states and their political subdivisions. The Supreme Court ruled that it was, with Justice Alito arguing that the individual right to possess and use firearms for self-defence is fundamental to the American "scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice".
The McDonald case also asked the court to overturn the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), which had determined that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not apply the Bill of Rights to state actions or local governments. The court in McDonald declined to restore the Privileges or Immunities Clause, but its opinion discussed the text and history of the entire Amendment, including the Clause.
Due Process Clauses: How Many Does the Constitution Protect?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Supreme Court's ruling and its implications
On June 28, 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government. The ruling clarified that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to all the states, and that the individual right to possess and use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defence, is fundamental to the American "scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice."
The Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago had significant implications for gun rights and state gun regulations across the country. It overturned previous interpretations of the Second Amendment, such as in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), which held that the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not extend the Bill of Rights to state actions. By ruling that the Second Amendment is incorporated against state action via the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court ensured that the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the states.
The ruling also addressed the uncertainty left by the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case regarding the scope of gun rights in relation to the states. It reaffirmed the Heller decision, which held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for self-defence, and applied it to the states. This meant that similar laws in Chicago and Oak Park, which had argued that their laws were constitutional because the Second Amendment did not apply to the states, were struck down.
The implications of the ruling extended beyond the specific case. For example, the Supreme Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Runyan (2010), which held that Heller did not apply to the Massachusetts state legislature, was partially overturned by McDonald. It was determined that the decisions made in Heller, and by extension, McDonald, do apply to the State of Massachusetts and all other states. Additionally, the Chicago law requiring firearms training in a shooting range to obtain a gun permit was challenged post-McDonald, and the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court decision that the measures were constitutional, as Chicago had also banned shooting ranges within the city.
While the McDonald ruling clarified the application of the Second Amendment to the states, it did not address all questions regarding gun laws. A large number of lawsuits would be needed to determine whether other existing state gun regulations might also be unconstitutional.
The Constitution: Conservative, Liberal, or Radical?
You may want to see also
The impact on gun control regulations
The case of McDonald v. Chicago concerned the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and whether this right, protected by the Second Amendment, applied to state and local gun control regulations. The specific question before the Court was whether the Second Amendment, as interpreted in the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, was incorporated against the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This case had a significant impact on gun control regulations across the United States. Prior to the McDonald decision, there was uncertainty about whether the Second Amendment applied to state and local laws, as the Bill of Rights was originally understood to restrict only the federal government. The Court's ruling in McDonald made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that applies to state and local governments as well. This had the immediate effect of invalidating gun control laws in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois, which had strict regulations that effectively banned handgun possession by private citizens.
The Court's decision also set a precedent that has been used to challenge other gun control measures at the state and local levels. Lower courts have applied the McDonald ruling to strike down a range of gun control laws, including some that imposed strict restrictions on carrying firearms in public and others that established lengthy waiting periods for firearm purchases. The Court's affirmation of the Second Amendment right as "fundamental" has made it more difficult for states and localities to justify restrictive gun control measures.
However, the McDonald decision did not invalidate all gun control regulations. The Court recognized that historical regulations, such as prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons, were consistent with the Second Amendment. The Court also emphasized that its ruling did not affect the ability of states to enact concealed-carry permitting regulations.
In the years since McDonald, the Supreme Court has declined to hear several Second Amendment cases, leaving lower courts with significant leeway in interpreting the scope of gun rights. While McDonald established that the Second Amendment applies to the states, it did not provide clear guidance on the level of scrutiny that courts should apply when reviewing gun control laws, which has resulted in varying approaches by lower courts.
Police Caution: Criminal Record or Not?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment, which guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government.
The case centred on whether the Second Amendment is applicable to the states and their political subdivisions.
The decision clarified that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is fully applicable to the states, and it opened the door for further legal challenges to state gun regulations.
