McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

McDonald v. Chicago, Supreme Court, 2010

Facts of the Case

In 1982, Chicago enacted a handgun ban that prohibited the possession of unregistered firearms and required the registration of all guns. The law effectively banned the possession of handguns by private citizens. Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident, and several other individuals challenged the law, arguing that it infringed on their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms for self-defense. They contended that the Second Amendment should apply to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Constitutional Question

Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, thereby invalidating Chicago’s handgun ban?

Arguments

For McDonald:

  • The Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, which should be protected against infringement by state and local governments.
  • The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates fundamental rights, including the right to bear arms, making them applicable to the states.
  • Self-defense is a fundamental right deeply rooted in American history and tradition, and state laws that effectively ban handguns infringe on this right.

For Chicago:

  • The regulation of firearms is a matter of public safety that should be determined by state and local governments, not federal courts.
  • The Second Amendment was originally intended to apply only to the federal government, and its incorporation against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment is not warranted.
  • The handgun ban is a reasonable regulation aimed at reducing gun violence and protecting public safety in urban areas.

The Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of McDonald. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Court concluded that the right to self-defense is fundamental to the American scheme of ordered liberty and deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions. Consequently, state and local governments cannot enact laws that infringe upon this right.

Significance

McDonald v. Chicago is a landmark case that extended the protections of the Second Amendment to state and local governments, ensuring that the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against all levels of government. The ruling built on the Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which recognized an individual’s right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home. McDonald v. Chicago reinforced the incorporation doctrine, which applies fundamental rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and has had significant implications for gun control laws across the United States. The decision has prompted legal challenges to various state and local firearm regulations, shaping the ongoing national debate over gun rights and public safety.