McDonald v Chicago

Context (McDonald v Chicago)

In Heller v the District of Columbia, it ruled that restrictive gun ownership laws in Washington DC were unconstitutional, but because DC is a federal district it only applied to federal territory. Otis McDonald and others did what they could for this decision to apply to the states. McDonald's Street was taken over by gangs. He himself was a hunter and owned rifles legally, but argued that they weren't functional for self-defense. Chicago's strict gun laws tried preventing him from buying a handgun.

Heller v District of Columbia summary (McDonald v Chicago)

Ruled that restrictive gun ownership laws in Washington DC were unconstitutional, but because DC is a federal district it only applied to federal territory. McDonald's wanted this to apply to the states as well

Constitutional principle (McDonald v Chicago)

Second amendment right to bare arms

McDonald argument (McDonald v Chicago)

Chicago's restrictive gun laws infringed on the second amendment rights for people to own guns

Chicago argument (McDonald v Chicago)

the laws were necessary to uphold public safety and order. The restrictive laws also did not outlaw the buying or restrict the ability to be lisenced, it just added an extra step/different method.

Decision (McDonald v Chicago)

Ruled in favor of McDonald and that the laws did in fact infringe on the citizens rights. The 14th amendment with the equal protection clause allows the courts to apply the bill of rights to state governments as well. This is also why the court ruled on a state law about guns.

Matters (McDonald v Chicago)

• Since the Heller case, only applied to federal territory, this case applied the same ruling to the states

  • This is known as selective incorporation

• Any state with similar restrictive gun laws had to rewrite their laws to agree with this case

Selective Incorporation (McDonald v Chicago)

How courts apply civil liberties in the Bill of Rights to the states