McDonald v. Chicago was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2010. The case dealt with whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, applies to state and local governments through the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
The case was brought by Otis McDonald, a resident of Chicago, Illinois who was concerned about crime in his neighborhood. McDonald argued that the city’s strict handgun ban, which prohibited him from owning a handgun for self-defense, violated his Second Amendment rights. The case was eventually appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The defendants (the City of Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois) argued that the Second Amendment did not apply to state and local governments, and that the Supreme Court’s previous ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) only applied to federal laws and regulations. They also argued that the strict gun control laws were necessary to address the high level of gun violence in Chicago.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment does apply to state and local governments through the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. This is a highly contentious issue in the United States, as it has the potential to significantly impact the ability of state and local governments to regulate firearms. The court held that the right to keep and bear arms is “fundamental” and “deeply rooted” in the nation’s history and tradition, and that the Chicago handgun ban was therefore unconstitutional.
The McDonald v. Chicago decision was a significant victory for gun rights advocates, as it established that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments and not just the federal government. The decision has also had a major impact on other cases involving gun control laws, with many laws being struck down or modified as a result.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, argued that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which prohibits state and local governments from denying individuals of “liberty” without “due process of law.” The Court found that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and carry firearms for self-defense and that this right is fundamental and applies to the states under the Due Process Clause.
However, the dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stevens, argued that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, and that the Court’s decision was a departure from long-established precedent. He argued that the incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to include the Second Amendment.
Gun rights advocates generally view the McDonald v. Chicago decision as a victory for the Second Amendment and individual liberty. They argue that the decision affirms the right of individuals to own and carry firearms for self-defense, and that it will help to strike down restrictive gun control laws at the state and local level.
It is good to note that these Supreme court’s rulings set a huge precedent for future Second Amendment related cases, causing a domino-effect. For example, Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) the Second Amendment was extended to stun guns, and furthermore in NYSRPA v. City of New York (2019) and NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), the stand on gun-freedom leaned heavily towards a more conservatist point of view which effectively weakened the states’ power to regulate gun-freedom related laws.
Gun control advocates generally view the decision as a setback for public safety. They argue that the decision will make it harder to enact and enforce laws designed to reduce gun violence and make communities safer. They also assert that the decision could lead to more widespread gun ownership and ultimately more gun-related deaths.
Additionally, from a legal standpoint, some have criticized the Court’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago, arguing that the Court misconstrued the original intent of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the decision was not based on sound legal reasoning.
The dangers shown in these Supreme Court cases are related to the freedom of interpretation of what could be regarded as the most highly valued pieces of legal text. The possibility of impacting the whole nation’s legal system on a basis of an individual’s subjective political view is rather an uncomforting thought.
T. A. M. V.